G.R. No. 100455 September 17, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Luisito Eroles y Veranga alias “Ka Randy”, Alejandro Romero alias “Ka Noel”, Feliciano Patriarca alias “Ka Darwin”, Pedro Eroles alias “Ka Rommel”, Peter Doe and John Doe, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On March 23, 1989, two soldiers, C2C Fernando Villanueva and CAA Rogelio Nieva, were killed at a restaurant in Barangay Lapu-lapu, Unisan, Quezon. Their weapons were presumably stolen. Luisito Eroles was picked up by police for questioning that same day. An information for robbery with double homicide was filed against Eroles and five others, but only Eroles was arraigned as the others remained at large. He pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court convicted Eroles based principally on the testimonies of Pat. Danilo Medina and C1C Geronimo Carreon, finding that Eroles, in the company of others, shot and killed Villanueva and took the victims’ weapon. The court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay indemnity to Villanueva’s heirs. Eroles appealed, challenging the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the proof of robbery.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Luisito Eroles killed the victims; and (2) Whether the prosecution established that a robbery was committed on the occasion of the killings.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted Luisito Eroles. The Court held that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. First, the Court corrected the designation of the crime in the information, stating it should be “robbery with homicide” regardless of the number killed, as it is a crime against property where the homicide must be connected to the robbery. Second, the Court found vital contradictions between the two prosecution eyewitnesses: Carreon testified he saw Eroles fire at Villanueva and then take his rifle, while Medina testified that when they arrived, both victims were already dead and Eroles fired at Carreon. This inconsistency on the crucial point of who killed Villanueva injected reasonable doubt. Third, the evidence of robbery was weak and uncertain; the object of the robbery (whose rifle was taken) was unclear, and there was no convincing proof a firearm was stolen at all. The Court noted the prosecution failed to present the restaurant owner, the best eyewitness. While Eroles’s alibi was weak, the prosecution’s case was even weaker and could not overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The Court was not morally certain that Eroles killed the victims or that a robbery occurred on that occasion. Therefore, Eroles was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt and ordered released immediately.