G.R. No. 177361 February 1, 2010
ARMANDO VIDAR @ “Ricky”, NORBERTO BUTALON,(†) SONNY MARBELLA @ “Spike” and JOHN DOES and PETER DOES, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On April 30, 2001, at about 7:00 p.m., Sgt. Julio D. Dioneda was murdered and valuables were taken from his house in Sorsogon City. Prosecution witnesses Florecita Dioneda (the victim’s wife) and Niña Dioneda Elemanco (the victim’s sister) testified that three armed men, later identified as petitioners Armando Vidar, Norberto Butalon, and Sonny Marbella, barged into the house. Marbella poked a gun at Florecita while the other two ransacked the house, taking a wallet, crash helmet, and a .45 caliber firearm belonging to Dioneda, who was then taking a bath outside. The witnesses followed the men outside and saw them, along with about ten other persons, surrounding Dioneda, who was lying face down. Despite Florecita’s pleas, Marbella and Vidar fired shots, killing Dioneda. The three then fled on Dioneda’s motorcycle. Petitioners denied the accusations, claiming alibis and suggesting the charges were motivated by their known membership in the New People’s Army (NPA). The Regional Trial Court found them guilty of Robbery with Homicide and initially imposed the death penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua due to the prohibition of the death penalty under Republic Act No. 9346 .

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioners’ conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide despite alleged insufficiency of evidence and their claim that the killing was in furtherance of rebellion.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the modified decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the prosecution satisfactorily proved all elements of robbery with homicide: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery, a homicide was committed. The positive identification by eyewitnesses was deemed credible. The Court rejected the defense of alibi and the claim that the delay in filing charges weakened the prosecution’s case, noting that delay is understandable due to fear of reprisal, especially given petitioners’ alleged NPA membership. The Court also found no merit in the argument that the crime was committed in furtherance of rebellion, as the evidence clearly established robbery as the main purpose. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the petition with respect to Norberto Butalon, as his criminal and civil liability were extinguished by reason of his death. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, actual damages, and loss of earning capacity to the victim’s heirs were sustained.