G.R. No. 101742 . March 25, 1993.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ASTERIO ESCOSIO y AYSON alias “Arnel” and MELCHOR DE LOS REYES y MEJIA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of September 13, 1985, Avelino Flores was informed of a plan to steal bangus fingerlings from the Flores family fishpond in Calmay District, Dagupan City. Avelino and his brothers (Nestor, Narciso, and Ramon), along with two others, decided to guard the fishpond. They positioned themselves on an elevated portion (“ponso”) near the watergate. At around 3:30 a.m. on September 14, several persons arrived. One went to the nearby house of accused-appellant Melchor de los Reyes, summoned him, and together they proceeded to the fishpond. They opened the watergate, removed thorns, and began scooping bangus fingerlings, transferring them to an adjacent fishpond. The Flores group then surrounded the intruders, shone flashlights on them, and shouted. They recognized the two men as accused-appellants Asterio Escosio and Melchor de los Reyes. Escosio dropped his net, drew a gun, and fired three shots at the group, hitting Narciso (who died) and Nestor (who was wounded). The accused fled. The appellants were charged with “Robbery with Homicide and Attempted Homicide.” They pleaded not guilty and interposed alibi as a defense. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, with damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the defense of alibi can prevail over the positive identification of the appellants by prosecution witnesses.
2. Whether the information was defective for its designation of the offense.
3. Whether conspiracy was established to hold appellant Melchor de los Reyes liable for Robbery with Homicide.
4. Whether the trial court correctly adjudged the civil liability.

RULING

1. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. The prosecution witnesses, who were familiar with the appellants in their barrio, positively identified them as the culprits without any motive to testify falsely. The appellants failed to prove it was impossible for them to be at the crime scene at the time.
2. The description of the offense in the information prevails over its designation. The alleged defect was in the designation (“Robbery with Homicide and Attempted Homicide”), not in the narration of ultimate facts. The appellants were adequately informed of the charge against them.
3. Conspiracy was present. Conspiracy was inferred from the appellants’ concerted acts: de los Reyes was summoned by the robbers, accompanied them to the fishpond, helped Escosio scoop bangus fry, and was seen fleeing after the shooting. Since a homicide occurred during the robbery, all conspirators are liable for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, regardless of direct participation in the killing, absent proof of an attempt to prevent it.
4. The civil liability must be modified. The trial court failed to award indemnity for the injury to Nestor Flores, who spent P1,000.00 for treatment of his gunshot wound. The appellants are ordered to pay this amount jointly and severally to Nestor Flores.
The appealed judgment was AFFIRMED with the modification that appellants are ordered to pay Nestor Flores P1,000.00 jointly and severally.