G.R. No. 105581 December 7, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Elmer de Asis y Meneses and Danilo Mercado y Adorable, accused-appellants.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging accused-appellants Elmer de Asis and Danilo Mercado with Robbery with Homicide. The crime was allegedly committed on July 29, 1991, in Quezon City, where the accused, conspiring and mutually helping each other, with intent to gain and by means of violence and intimidation, robbed Victor Peregrino of P350.00 and, on the occasion of the robbery, stabbed him, causing his death. The medico-legal report described the victim’s fatal stab wounds. At around 1:40 AM on July 29, 1991, taxi drivers Antonio Bautista and Rogelio Miranda, while eating at a restaurant, heard shouts of “hold-up” from a nearby taxi. They saw a commotion inside the taxi between the driver and two men. When the two men alighted, they threatened Bautista and Miranda with a fan knife. The witnesses described the assailants, later identified as Mercado (the taller one with the knife) and de Asis (the shorter one). The accused fled but were chased. Mercado was apprehended, and a bloodied fan knife was recovered from his pocket. De Asis was caught, and a wallet containing P350.00 and the victim’s driver’s license was recovered from him. The trial court found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua. The accused appealed, raising several errors.

ISSUE

The main issues raised on appeal were: 1) Whether the trial court erred in not granting the accused-appellants’ motion for preliminary investigation; 2) Whether the eyewitnesses were credible “eleventh-hour witnesses”; 3) Whether the environmental conditions made identification improbable; 4) Whether there were irreconcilable inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies; 5) Whether the accused-appellants’ presence near the crime scene was adequately explained; and 6) Whether the trial court erred in considering the lack of corroboration for accused Mercado’s claim of being mauled.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto, finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On the first issue, the Court held that accused-appellants were in estoppel from claiming lack of preliminary investigation after pleading not guilty without invoking their right thereto, thereby waiving it. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the prosecution could present witnesses not listed in the information, and their non-inclusion was for their protection and did not affect their credibility. On the third and fourth issues, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, noting that minor inconsistencies did not detract from their overall reliability and that the confluence of events pointed to the accused’s guilt. The Court found the witnesses’ testimonies consistent on material points: they heard shouts, saw the commotion, identified the accused, gave chase, and the accused were apprehended with incriminating evidence (the victim’s wallet and a bloody knife). On the fifth issue, the Court rejected the accused’s alibi and explanation for their presence as flimsy in light of the evidence against them. On the sixth issue, the Court held that conviction was based on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, not the weakness of the defense, and the lack of corroboration for the mauling claim was inconsequential. The Court found the circumstantial evidence—multiple proven circumstances leading to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt—sufficient to sustain the guilt of the accused-appellants.