G.R. No. 105958 November 20, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO LEDESMA alias “JUAN LEDESMA”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of August 7, 1984, Loreto Patricio Jr. was shot dead in Barangay Dayhagan, Pilar, Capiz. The incident began when the Patricio family’s dogs barked, prompting Loreto Jr., his father Loreto Sr., and brother Edilberto to investigate. They proceeded to their carabao corral, where they saw accused-appellant Romeo Ledesma and Fernando Bernal, both armed with homemade shotguns, and a third unidentified man attempting to steal their carabao. As the Patricios approached, Bernal fired a shot, missing them. Seconds later, Ledesma fired, fatally hitting Loreto Jr. The assailants then fled. Ledesma was charged with murder alongside Bernal and a John Doe, but only Ledesma was tried after Bernal died pending trial and the third accused remained unidentified.
At trial, the prosecution presented eyewitnesses Loreto Sr. and Edilberto, who positively identified Ledesma as the gunman. The defense relied on alibi, claiming Ledesma was at his home in a neighboring barangay attending his son’s wake and could not have been at the crime scene. The trial court convicted Ledesma of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the prosecution proved Ledesma’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding his positive identification; and (2) whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to robbery with homicide. The Court found the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses credible and convincing. It rejected Ledesma’s alibi, noting the short distance between his home and the crime scene made his presence possible, and his defense was uncorroborated by disinterested witnesses. The alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies on minor details were deemed natural and did not impair their credibility.
However, the Court disagreed with the trial court’s finding of treachery. The attack was not deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure the execution without risk to the assailants. The shooting occurred when the victims unexpectedly arrived to thwart the robbery, making the manner of attack incidental. The legal logic dictates that when a killing is committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, the complex crime of robbery with homicide is absorbed under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The evidence established that Ledesma and his cohorts were in the act of stealing the carabao when they fired at the approaching victims, killing Loreto Jr. Thus, the elements of robbery with homicide were satisfied. The penalty was affirmed at reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity increased to P50,000.00.