G.R. No. L-28132 November 25, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FORTUNATO CASILLAR Y GABRIELES, ET AL., defendants, ROGELIO AMITA Y BALDORADO and DOMINICO ARMALDA Y BARTOLATA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On June 11, 1966, around 9:00 PM, at the corner of Lope de Vega and Misericordia Streets in Manila, a 14-year-old waste paper scavenger named Danilo Nicolas witnessed the robbery and killing of a Chinese man, Chan Siak. Nicolas saw four men—Fortunato Casillar, Rogelio Amita, Dominico Armalda, and Celso Puzon (a minor charged separately)—accost Chan Siak. Casillar and Puzon held the victim’s hands while Armalda and Amita pointed a “balisong” (knife) at him. Armalda stabbed the victim in the right side, and Amita stabbed him in the neck. Armalda then took the victim’s wallet from his hip pocket. The four fled, and the victim later died from his wounds. The autopsy revealed a penetrating stab wound on the right chest as the cause of death. The appellants, Amita and Armalda, along with Casillar, were later apprehended. They executed extrajudicial confessions detailing their roles and shares in the loot (Armalda and Casillar received P50 each, Amita received P75) and participated in a re-enactment of the crime. Part of the stolen money was recovered from their relatives. At trial, the defendants-appellants challenged the credibility of eyewitness Danilo Nicolas, the voluntariness of their confessions, and presented alibi defenses. The trial court convicted all accused of robbery with homicide. Casillar, being a minor, received a lesser penalty. Amita and Armalda were sentenced to death, prompting this automatic review.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) the credibility and competence of the eyewitness, Danilo Nicolas; (2) the admissibility and voluntariness of the extrajudicial confessions and the re-enactment; (3) the validity of the appellants’ alibi defenses; and (4) the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It held that the testimony of Danilo Nicolas was credible and competent despite an initial error in the date (initially stated as 1965 instead of 1966), as the error was corrected, and his focus was on the facts of the incident rather than the precise date. The extrajudicial confessions were deemed voluntary, as the appellants failed to overcome the presumption of voluntariness; they did not report alleged maltreatment when swearing to the confessions before the fiscal and voluntarily participated in the crime re-enactment. The appellants’ alibi defenses were rejected for being weak, auto-contradictory, and insufficient to overcome their positive identification by Nicolas and their own confessions. The Court agreed with the trial court that the crime was aggravated by abuse of superior strength, as four armed assailants attacked a lone, unarmed victim. The mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction was not credited, as its assessment primarily rests with the trial court, which did not find it. The death penalty was affirmed, but the indemnity to the victim’s heirs was increased to P12,000.00.