GR 94187; (November, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94187 November 4, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TIRSO GARCIA and VICENTE TORREJAS, accused. VICENTE TORREJAS, appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Vicente Torrejas, together with Tirso Garcia (who remained at large), was charged with Robbery with Homicide for the killing of 78-year-old Flaviano Gonzales and the theft of cash and documents from his house. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of Eusebio Nagulada, who testified that on the afternoon of June 30, 1988, he went to Flaviano’s house to deliver groceries. Outside the house, he saw Tirso Garcia and appellant Vicente Torrejas standing near banana plants. Nagulada entered the house and discovered Flaviano’s dead body. When he rushed out, Tirso Garcia summoned him, threatened him not to tell anyone about the death, or else he would be the next victim. Appellant was present during this threat, standing about three fathoms away, merely looking at them. Socorro Gonzales, the victim’s wife, later discovered the body, missing cash, and land titles. A medico-legal report established the cause of death. The defense presented an alibi, claiming appellant was at his brother-in-law’s house, about 200 meters away, loading sacks onto a cart at the time of the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Appellant appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant Vicente Torrejas for the crime of Robbery with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED appellant Vicente Torrejas. The Court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of Eusebio Nagulada merely placed appellant at the scene of the crime but failed to establish any overt act demonstrating conspiracy or participation in the robbery and killing. His presence near the house, without more, did not constitute proof of criminal involvement. The prosecution did not present any evidence directly linking appellant to the commission of the crime. The Court emphasized that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute for proof. Furthermore, the trial court erred in imposing the penalty of “life imprisonment”; the proper penalty for Robbery with Homicide under the circumstances is reclusion perpetua. Appellant was ordered immediately released unless held for another lawful cause.