G.R. No. 127840 November 29, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLAND PARAISO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On June 11, 1995, in Minglanilla, Cebu, accused-appellant Roland Paraiso and an unidentified companion entered the house of Lolita Alipio Tigley. The prosecution’s case was primarily established through the testimonies of eyewitnesses, including the victim’s niece, Sheila Marie Alipio, and her children. Sheila testified that she was at the door delivering water when two men, one of whom she identified in court as Paraiso, pushed their way inside. Paraiso pointed a gun at Lolita’s temple while his companion wielded a Batangas knife. The assailants herded Sheila and the victim’s children upstairs, demanded and took cash and valuables, and then took Lolita to another room. Lolita later emerged bloodied and collapsed, having been fatally stabbed. The accused-appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was elsewhere during the incident.

ISSUE

The core issue for automatic review is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Sheila Alipio and the victim’s son Epifanio Jr., to be credible, consistent, and positive. Their identification of Paraiso was categorical and remained unshaken despite rigorous cross-examination. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected by the trial court as it was not physically impossible for Paraiso to have been at the crime scene. The Court emphasized that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses. Furthermore, the killing was deemed to have occurred by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, as the unlawful taking was established by the witnesses’ accounts of the stolen items and the violence employed to consummate the theft. The Court held that all elements of Robbery with Homicide were present: the taking of personal property with intent to gain, through violence or intimidation against a person, and the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The aggravating circumstances of dwelling and disregard of the respect due the victim on account of her sex and age were also present, justifying the penalty of death. The award of damages was modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.