G.R. No. L-16304; November 30, 1962
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMILIO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL., defendants, EMILIO DE LOS SANTOS, AURELIO DE LOS SANTOS, PEDRO DE LOS SANTOS and ENRIQUE NATIVIDAD, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On April 13, 1956, in Nagbannagan, Lasam, Cagayan, a group of armed men robbed the store and ricemill operated by Uy King and Estefania Pagtama. The incident began in the late afternoon when appellants Pedro de los Santos and Enrique Natividad entered the store to drink, later joined by others. They then pointed guns at Estefania, demanded money, and struck her. Pedro de los Santos fired at a drawer lock to steal cash. During the robbery, Uy King was shot and killed in a passageway near the kitchen.
The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses. Estefania Pagtama identified Pedro de los Santos, Enrique Natividad, and Eusebio Clemente (not an appellant) inside the store, and identified Emilio and Aurelio de los Santos as guards at the door. Agustin Fajardo, a neighbor, corroborated the presence of the appellants and identified Eusebio Clemente as the shooter. Alexander Bulan, an employee, also identified the appellants and confirmed the roles of Emilio and Aurelio de los Santos as armed guards.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the guilt of the appellants for the crime of robbery in band with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of their defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the positive identification by the three prosecution witnesses to be credible and sufficient to establish the appellants’ presence and participation in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses knew the appellants as fellow barrio residents and consistently identified their specific roles: Pedro in intimidating Estefania and breaking open the drawer; Enrique as an initial participant inside the store; and Emilio and Aurelio as armed lookouts at the door.
The Court rejected the defense of alibi presented by each appellant. It ruled that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, especially given that the places where the appellants claimed to have been during the crime—playing mahjong, attending a dance, or watching a palay threshing—were all within one kilometer of the crime scene. This proximity did not preclude their ability to have been at the scene. The Court also modified the trial court’s finding on the number of arms carried, holding that the evidence clearly showed four arms were used: a firearm used in the killing, a revolver used by Pedro, and bolos wielded by Emilio and Aurelio. This confirmed the element of “band.” However, for lack of sufficient votes for capital punishment, the penalty was affirmed as reclusion perpetua.