G.R. No. 101583 August 13, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANOLITO TIDONG y LASCANO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Manolito Tidong was charged with and convicted of robbery with homicide and double frustrated homicide by the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela. The prosecution’s evidence established that on March 27, 1991, Tidong, a former employee of the Co family, entered their residence, grabbed their six-year-old daughter Joan (or Jo-ann) Co, and held a knife to her neck. He demanded P5,000.00. Vicente Co complied and placed the money on the floor. After retrieving the money, Tidong retreated, pushed the child to the ground, and then stabbed Vicente Co, Martin Co, and Mario Co when they rushed to help. Vicente died from his wounds. Tidong was chased by neighbors and apprehended by Pfc. Henry Marteja, who recovered P4,200.00 and a knife from him. The defense presented a different version, claiming Tidong went to the Co residence to demand separation pay, was threatened by Martin Co with a gun, grabbed the child in self-defense, and only took the money and a thrown gun after being promised payment. He claimed the stabbing occurred during a melee outside with other individuals.

ISSUE

The main issues were: (1) the credibility of the prosecution witnesses; (2) whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) assuming responsibility, whether the crime was properly characterized and if the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the legal characterization of the crime. The Court found the prosecution witnesses credible and their testimonies consistent. The defense version was deemed implausible and fabricated. The Court held that the killing and frustrated homicides were committed on the occasion of the robbery, constituting the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The frustrated homicides were absorbed and should not have been separately alleged. The Court agreed that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was present, as Tidong surrendered to Pfc. Marteja when ordered to stop. However, since the penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death, and with a mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua still applies. The judgment was affirmed with the modification that Tidong is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.