G.R. No. L-63070 August 12, 1986
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GIL JUMADIAO, VIRGILIO CORILLO alias VIRGILIO AGUILLON alias BEBOT SPUTNIK AND JOHN “Doe” (ROMEO CINCO), accused, GIL JUMADIAO & ROMEO CINCO, appellants.

FACTS

The accused, Gil Jumadiao, Romeo Cinco, and Virgilio Corillo, were charged with Robbery with Homicide. The information alleged that on September 17, 1978, in Tacloban City, while on a motorized tricycle, they conspired to forcibly take P11,000 from Chinese businessman Tiburcio Reandino. To effect the robbery, they assaulted Reandino, with Corillo shooting him in the abdomen, causing his death. The crime was alleged to be aggravated by treachery, use of a firearm, nighttime, use of a motor vehicle, recidivism, and abuse of superior strength. Only Jumadiao and Cinco were arrested and tried; Corillo remained at large. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of tricycle driver Juan Gatela, who vividly detailed the entire incident, from the boarding of the accused to the shooting and the disposal of Reandino’s body.
At trial, appellants Jumadiao and Cinco contested their identification by Gatela, presenting alibi defenses. Jumadiao claimed he was in Manila, while Cinco asserted he was in his hometown of Alangalang, Leyte, at the time of the crime. The trial court rejected these defenses, finding Gatela’s identification credible and consistent. It convicted both appellants of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law), and sentenced them to death, appreciating the aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellants Gil Jumadiao and Romeo Cinco beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the reliability of their identification by eyewitness Juan Gatela and the validity of their alibi defenses.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but commuted the death penalty to reclusion perpetua due to the lack of necessary votes for execution. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, emphasizing that the lone eyewitness account of Juan Gatela was clear, convincing, and without ill motive. Gatela had ample opportunity to observe the appellants during the prolonged incident, which occurred in daylight, and he consistently identified them in subsequent police line-ups and in court. His detailed narration remained unshaken on cross-examination.
The Court found the appellants’ alibi defenses weak and unpersuasive. For alibi to prevail, it must be physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene. Jumadiao failed to substantiate his claim of being in Manila, while Cinco’s claim of being in Alangalang, a municipality not far from Tacloban City, did not preclude his presence at the crime scene. The positive identification by a credible witness prevails over such unsubstantiated alibis. The Court also ruled that the aggravating circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, leaving the victim no chance to defend himself. The circumstance of abuse of superior strength was deemed absorbed in treachery. The crime committed was Highway Robbery with Homicide, punishable by death under the applicable law, but the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.