G.R. No. 112459 ; March 28, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. PAULINO BUAYABAN, LARRY BETACHE, MARCIANO TOÑACAO (at large), YOYONG BUAYABAN (at large) and PEDRO TUMULAK, accused. PEDRO TUMULAK, appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of January 2, 1990, in Barangay Maihao, Cawayan, Masbate, accused Paulino Buayaban, Larry Betache, Marciano Toñacao, Yoyong Buayaban, and appellant Pedro Tumulak, all armed, entered the house of Dioscoro Abonales. Tumulak and Buayaban immediately poked their guns at Rolando Verdida and Elizabeth Abonales, ordering them to lie on the floor. Toñacao and Yoyong Buayaban proceeded to a room, where Yoyong kicked the sleeping Dioscoro and Marciano shot him in the neck, causing instant death. Meanwhile, Larry Betache stood guard outside.
Pedro Tumulak then went to the kitchen, grabbed Josefa Abonales (Dioscoro’s wife), and demanded money. Frightened, Josefa was followed by Marciano to a room where she surrendered P30,000 from a chest after being threatened. Simultaneously, Rolando Verdida’s wallet containing P10,000 was taken while he was lying face down. The perpetrators fled but were seen by Artemio Abonales, the victim’s father, who recognized them. Paulino Buayaban attempted to shoot Artemio, but the gun misfired.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant Pedro Tumulak for the crime of Robbery with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The defense of alibi and denial proffered by appellant Tumulak cannot prevail over the positive identification by eyewitnesses Rolando Verdida, Josefa Abonales, and Artemio Abonales. Their testimonies were consistent, credible, and detailed in establishing Tumulak’s active participation in the robbery and the acts of violence and intimidation employed. The Court found no ill motive for these witnesses to falsely accuse the appellant.
The legal logic is clear: for alibi to succeed, the accused must demonstrate not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene. Tumulak’s claim of being in a neighboring barangay failed to meet this stringent requirement, as the distance was not shown to be insurmountable. Furthermore, the collective actions of the accused, including Tumulak’s act of guarding victims and personally confronting Josefa for money, established conspiracy. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all; thus, Tumulak is equally liable for the resulting homicide committed in the course of the robbery, even if he did not personally fire the fatal shot. The crime is a special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, where the homicide is treated as an aggravating circumstance inherent in the commission of the robbery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court was thus affirmed.