GR 113785; (September, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113785 September 14, 1995
People of the Philippines vs. Rudy Esparraguerra and Rogelio Esparraguerra
FACTS
The accused-appellants, Rudy and Rogelio Esparraguerra, along with their uncle Ely Cabiles (at large), were charged with Robbery with Homicide. The prosecution evidence established that on July 27, 1991, the victim, Violeta Angustia, was walking home with her daughter, Salvacion Almoguera, in Barangay Sowa, San Fernando, Masbate. The three accused blocked their path. Rogelio demanded money from Violeta, forcibly took P1,000.00 from her, and boxed her. Ely then twisted her arms, and Rudy hacked her neck with a bolo, causing her instantaneous death. Salvacion, who knew all three accused since childhood, witnessed the entire incident from a short distance on a moonlit night before fleeing.
The defense of the appellants was denial and alibi. They claimed they were in their respective homes at the time of the crime. Rogelio asserted he was working on a farm until 4:00 p.m. and was home thereafter, a claim corroborated by his wife. The trial court convicted both appellants, giving full credence to the eyewitness testimony of Salvacion.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellants Rudy and Rogelio Esparraguerra for the crime of Robbery with Homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Salvacion Almoguera to be credible, natural, and consistent. She positively identified the appellants, whom she had known since childhood, and gave a detailed account of the robbery and the killing. Her proximity to the event and the illumination provided by the moonlight negated any possibility of mistaken identity. The Court emphasized that the assessment of witness credibility by the trial court is accorded great respect. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as it was not physically impossible for the appellants to have been at the crime scene. Furthermore, the alibi was not corroborated by disinterested witnesses. The taking of money preceded the killing, satisfying the elements of Robbery with Homicide where the homicide was committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery. The Court also affirmed the presence of the aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place and disregard of sex, but noted that the penalty remained reclusion perpetua as the death penalty could not be imposed under the 1987 Constitution .