GR L 31155; (April, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31155. April 22, 1974.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODRIGO DEREJE alias Lodring, LICERIO PARTIDA alias Tomas, ALBERTO MENDONES alias Berting, AVELINO PASAMIC alias Felino and CELESTINO PARTIDA alias Tenong, accused, RODRIGO DEREJE and LICERIO PARTIDA, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On the night of December 10, 1962, Tomas Macadangdang and his wife Estefania were in their hut in Umingan, Pangasinan, when their dog barked. Macadangdang went to investigate and was met with a burst of gunfire, causing fatal wounds. Rodrigo Dereje (Lodring) then entered the hut, demanded a Thompson submachine gun, and proceeded to rob the family of clothing, chickens, and eggs valued at P116. Estefania recognized Dereje as the intruder and also saw Licerio Partida (Tomas), her husband’s “best friend,” standing near the ladder. The police investigation yielded a sworn statement from witness Francisco de la Cruz, who recounted that Partida had invited him earlier that evening to join a gang, including Dereje, to take Macadangdang’s gun, warning that Macadangdang would be shot if he resisted.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution evidence, particularly the eyewitness identification and the corroborating sworn statement, sufficiently establishes the guilt of appellants Rodrigo Dereje and Licerio Partida for the crime of robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt, overcoming their defenses of alibi and challenging witness credibility.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua and increasing the civil indemnity. The Court found the positive identification by the victim’s wife, Estefania, to be credible and compelling. She knew both appellants prior to the incident and clearly saw Dereje inside the hut and Partida outside during the robbery and shooting. This testimony was corroborated by the sworn statement of Francisco de la Cruz, who detailed the appellants’ plan to rob and kill Macadangdang, which was executed shortly after. The Court rejected the appellants’ alibis as inherently weak and fabricated. Dereje claimed to be at a wake about a kilometer away, and Partida claimed to be sleeping at home two kilometers away. The Court ruled these distances did not make it physically impossible for them to have committed the crime at 10 p.m. and then proceeded to their alleged locations. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. The collective evidence established conspiracy; Partida’s presence and prior planning with Dereje made him equally liable as a co-conspirator in the robbery that resulted in homicide.