GR 118315; (June, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118315 June 20, 1996
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALLAN RUBIO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of May 17, 1992, Anastacio Garbo heard shouts for help from the house of his neighbor, Silvina Cuyos. Upon investigating, he saw the accused, Allan Rubio, wrestling with the victim inside her kitchen. Garbo retreated to seek help from other neighbors. When he and his companions returned, they saw Rubio walking away from the scene. They found Cuyos lying injured; she later died in the hospital from her wounds. The victim’s nephew, Maximo Cuyos, subsequently discovered that pillows in the house had been ripped open and jewelry was missing.
The prosecution presented eyewitness Garbo, corroborating witness Paulino Ygot, Maximo Cuyos, and the attending physician. The defense presented Rubio, who admitted being near the house but implicated another person, Lucio Arsenal, as the assailant. The trial court found the prosecution’s version credible and convicted Rubio of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of Robbery with Homicide based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the conviction. It upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, particularly that of eyewitness Anastacio Garbo, whose testimony was found consistent and credible. The Court emphasized that the trial court’s factual findings command great respect, as it is in the best position to evaluate witness demeanor and conduct. The Court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding Garbo’s reaction, noting that there is no standard behavioral response to witnessing a crime.
However, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the robbery component beyond reasonable doubt. While the killing was established through eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, the proof of robbery was insufficient. The discovery of missing items by the victim’s nephew a day later, without more, did not conclusively establish that a robbery occurred contemporaneously with the homicide. For a conviction of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, both elements must be proven with moral certainty. Consequently, the Court convicted the appellant of Homicide only. Considering the aggravating circumstance of disregard of respect due to the victim’s age, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The civil indemnity of P50,000 was affirmed.