G.R. No. 92000 July 5, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO LAGARIO, ANECITO SAYONG, RODRIGO ENCISO and THREE JOHN DOES, accused. RODOLFO LAGARIO, ANECITO SAYONG, and RODRIGO ENCISO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On July 30, 1982, around 6:00 PM, Leonides Lagario, her husband Meliton Lagario, and their three grandsons were in their house in Barangay Esperanza, Burauen, Leyte. Six men arrived, three of whom were recognized by grandson Romeo Lagario as his uncle Rodolfo Lagario (“Tatay Rudy”), Anecito Sayong (“Sitoy”), and Rodrigo Enciso (“Luding”). The men demanded entry. Sayong and a companion forced their way in through the main door, while Enciso went to the kitchen door. Once inside, Sayong hacked Meliton Lagario, causing fatal injuries. Enciso then bound Leonides Lagario, dragged her, hit her with a gun, and demanded money. After Leonides revealed the money was in a trunk, Enciso took it. The assailants left after hearing Rodolfo Lagario say from outside, “You come down, anyway my father is dead.” Leonides suffered injuries. The police later investigated. The accused were charged with Robbery with Homicide. During the appeal, Rodolfo Lagario withdrew his appeal, and Anecito Sayong died, leaving only Rodrigo Enciso as the appellant. Enciso’s defense was alibi, claiming he was at a barangay fiesta in Malabca, 13 kilometers away, at the time of the crime.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Rodrigo Enciso of the crime of Robbery with Homicide based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and despite his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the appeal of Rodrigo Enciso and AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision with modifications. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, Leonides and Romeo Lagario, who positively identified Enciso as one of the perpetrators. Their identification was reliable as the house was illuminated by an electric light, and they knew Enciso prior to the incident. The defense of alibi was rejected as it was not physically impossible for Enciso to be at the crime scene given the distance of 13 kilometers by road. The crime was qualified by treachery (alevosia) as the attack was sudden and without warning. The penalty was modified to Reclusion Perpetua (from life imprisonment), and the civil indemnity for Meliton Lagario’s death was increased to P50,000.00. The estate of the deceased accused Anecito Sayong was held jointly and severally liable with the other accused for the total amount of P53,028.00 (P3,028.00 for the robbery and P50,000.00 as indemnity), with a right of reimbursement from his co-accused. Costs were imposed on appellant Enciso.