GR 117106; (June, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 117106, June 26, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JIMMY ALBERCA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
In the early hours of April 11, 1994, several malefactors entered the compound of Rebecca Saycon in Quezon City. The intruders attacked security guard Felipe Climaco and houseboy Joey Rodriguez. Climaco was stabbed multiple times, resulting in his death, while Rodriguez sustained a non-fatal stab wound. The assailants also took Climaco’s service firearm. Accused-appellant Jimmy Alberca was identified by Joey Rodriguez as one of the attackers who stabbed him at the gate. The trial court convicted Alberca of Robbery with Homicide and Physical Injuries and imposed the death penalty.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Alberca’s guilt for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the credibility of the eyewitness identification and the presence of conspiracy.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Joey Rodriguez credible and reliable. He positively identified Alberca as the person who stabbed him, providing a clear opportunity for identification during the incident. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated. The Court ruled that conspiracy among the malefactors was established by their collective and coordinated actions in entering the compound, attacking the victims, and taking the firearm. When homicide and physical injuries are committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, they are integrated into the single, indivisible complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The physical injuries inflicted on Joey Rodriguez are absorbed and do not constitute a separate crime. However, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, as the information did not allege any qualifying circumstance that would warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty. The Court affirmed the awards of civil indemnity and restitution.