G.R. No. 10708; September 24, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCOS LUMANLAN, ET AL., defendants. MARCOS LUMANLAN, appellant.

FACTS:
Between the night of March 13 and the early morning of March 14, 1914, four individuals entered the house of Cesareo Dimalanta and his wife Bibiana Goingco in Sapangbato, Angeles, Pampanga. Two of them (Brigido Gonzalez and Zacarias Torres) held Bibiana and demanded money, taking a purse containing P10 and a trunk key. They then opened a trunk and stole P130 in bank bills, a pair of earrings, and a tumbaga ring set with pearls, valued at P15. The other two (Alejandro Dizon and Marcos Lumanlan) assaulted the blind and elderly Cesareo Dimalanta. Lumanlan, armed with a revolver, struck Dimalanta on the head and breast, inflicting a wound that healed in ten to fifteen days. The victims and their son, Carlos Dimalanta, recognized the perpetrators due to a light in the house. Furthermore, Emilio Goingco, responding to cries for help, met and recognized Lumanlan among the four men fleeing the scene. The Court of First Instance of Pampanga convicted all four defendants of robbery with physical injuries. Only Marcos Lumanlan appealed, pleading not guilty and setting up an alibi that he was in Concepcion from the afternoon of March 13 until the 15th.

ISSUE:
Whether the guilt of appellant Marcos Lumanlan for the crime of robbery with physical injuries has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding his defense of alibi.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed Lumanlan’s conviction but modified the penalty. The defense of alibi was rejected as it was completely invalidated by the positive identification of Lumanlan by the victims and a witness. Cesareo Dimalanta, though blind, recognized Lumanlan by his voice, a familiarity gained as co-residents. Their son, Carlos, and the responding relative, Emilio Goingco, provided clear and corroborative eyewitness accounts identifying Lumanlan at the scene and fleeing from it. The crime was classified as robo con lesiones under Articles 502 and 503, No. 5, of the Penal Code. The commission was attended by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling (Article 10, Nos. 15 and 20), with no mitigating circumstances to offset them. The Court held that lack of instruction could not be considered an extenuating circumstance under Article 11, as amended by Act No. 2142, for crimes of this nature. Consequently, the penalty was increased. Marcos Lumanlan was sentenced to nine years of presidio mayor, with the corresponding accessory penalties, and to indemnify the offended parties jointly and severally with his co-defendants in the amount of P150.