G.R. No. 105316 September 21, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENE LAMSING Y JABON, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rene Lamsing was charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide for the killing of security guard Winnie Cabunilas on November 1, 1989, at a construction site in Quezon City. The prosecution’s primary witness was Elizabeth de los Santos, a dishwasher in a nearby canteen, who testified that she was awakened by cries for help. She claimed to have seen, from a distance of about one meter, two men attacking Cabunilas, with Lamsing as the one repeatedly stabbing the victim with an ice pick. She identified Lamsing and stated she saw him take the victim’s firearm before fleeing. The defense presented an alibi, asserting Lamsing was at his uncle’s house preparing to sell food at a cemetery during the time of the incident.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Lamsing’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically challenging the credibility of the lone eyewitness, Elizabeth de los Santos, given her admission that there was no external light in the area during the incident.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of de los Santos’s credibility. It ruled that her testimony was credible and sufficient for conviction. The Court found her positive identification reliable because the crime occurred very close to her, her view was unobstructed, and she was familiar with both the victim and the appellant, who frequented the area. The claim of poor visibility was rejected; the Court accepted her explanation that light from the opened canteen door illuminated the assailants, who were momentarily frozen upon being discovered. The defense of alibi was properly dismissed for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially in the face of positive identification. The Court, however, modified the penalty. Following prevailing jurisprudence, it held that the crime committed was not the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The evidence only established that the taking of the gun was a mere afterthought to the killing, not the original purpose. Therefore, Lamsing was convicted of two separate crimes: homicide for the killing and simple theft for the taking of the firearm. The case was remanded for the proper imposition of penalties for these distinct offenses.