GR 111567; (March, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111567 March 13, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TEODORICO AVILLANO, ABRAHAM S. MANIOSO AND RICARDO S. MOLOBOCO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Teodorico Avillano, Abraham Manioso, and Ricardo Moloboco were charged with robbery with homicide. The prosecution evidence established that on October 6, 1991, the group, with two others, entered the residence of spouses Jose and Soledad Ramirez in Teresa, Rizal. Jose Ramirez was chased upon exiting the house and was later found dead with stab wounds. Inside, Moloboco poked a sharp instrument at Soledad’s neck, and together with Manioso, demanded and took cash. Moloboco asked Avillano, positioned outside, “Tutuluyan ko na ba ito?” to which Avillano replied, “Huwag, itali mo na lang.” The accused ransacked the house, taking an airgun, radio, flashlight, fighting cocks, and cash, before tying Soledad and her mother. Soledad positively identified Moloboco and Manioso. During police operations, fighting cocks taken from the residence were recovered from the accused.
The defense consisted of alibis. Moloboco claimed he was in Taytay, Rizal, and denied possession of any fighting cock upon arrest. Manioso and Avillano asserted they were in Tagaytay City at the time. The trial court convicted all three accused of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, with indemnities.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants of robbery with homicide based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Soledad Ramirez, a victim herself who had a clear view of the perpetrators during the traumatic incident, prevailed over the weak defenses of alibi. The Court noted that it is natural for victims to observe their assailants. The alibis were unconvincing; Moloboco’s claim of being in Taytay did not preclude his presence at the crime scene in nearby Antipolo, and Manioso and Avillano failed to present corroborating evidence. Conspiracy was rightly inferred from their collective actions: arriving together, chasing the victim, jointly ransacking the house, and their communication during the crime (Moloboco’s query and Avillano’s response). The recovery of stolen fighting cocks from the appellants further bolstered the prosecution’s case. In robbery with homicide, all conspirators in the robbery are liable for the homicide committed on the occasion thereof, regardless of who inflicted the fatal wounds. The trial court’s findings were thus upheld.