G.R. No. 100914 May 6, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO VIVAS @ LANDO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Rolando Vivas, was one of three men charged with robbery with homicide in the Regional Trial Court of Occidental Mindoro for an incident on September 23, 1986. The other two accused, Bobot Manongdo and Jeffrey Picar, remained at large. Only Vivas was arrested, tried, and convicted. The prosecution evidence, primarily from Barangay Captain Reynaldo Sagnip, established that in the early morning, Manongdo and Picar, who were members of the patrol team, attacked the barangay outpost at Bagong Sikat. Manongdo fired his M-16 rifle at the outpost. Sagnip exchanged shots with Manongdo, at which point Vivas appeared, wrestled Sagnip’s revolver from him, shot at Sagnip (but missed), and then joined Manongdo and Picar inside the outpost. Several shots were fired inside. The three then emerged, carrying away three firearms (two rifles and one revolver), leaving behind three dead patrolmen: Abelardo Gonzales, Mamerto Cañaveral, and Marciano Primero, all of whom died from gunshot wounds. In his defense, Vivas claimed he was merely invited to eat at the outpost, and upon arriving, saw the shooting. He alleged he acted on impulse to disarm Sagnip, but was then coerced at gunpoint by Manongdo to surrender the gun and accompany them inside the outpost out of fear for his life.

ISSUE

The sole issue raised on appeal is the credibility of the witnesses.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction, with modification. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings on credibility, emphasizing the principle of giving great weight to the trial judge’s direct observation of witness demeanor. The Court found no reason to disbelieve Barangay Captain Sagnip’s testimony, as no improper motive for falsehood was shown. Vivas’s defense of coercion was deemed not credible; his actions of disarming Sagnip during the shootout, entering the outpost with the assailants, and remaining in hiding for four years until arrest were inconsistent with innocence. The Court found a conspiracy among Vivas, Manongdo, and Picar, established by their concert of action and unity of purpose in shooting the victims and stealing the firearms, making each equally liable for the common offense. The crime committed was robbery with homicide. Although treachery was present as the victims were attacked while asleep or without warning, it is considered only a generic aggravating circumstance in this complex crime and does not qualify the killing to murder. The Court also clarified that the charge should have been for robbery with homicide only, not robbery with multiple homicide, as the number of persons killed does not alter the penalty under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The civil liability was modified, increasing the indemnity to the heirs of each of the three victims to P50,000.00.