G.R. No. 118334 . February 20, 2001.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LARRY CONSEJERO y PASCUA and ROMMEL MALAPIT (at large), accused. LARRY CONSEJERO y PASCUA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case stemmed from the robbery of a motor engine and the killing of Modesto Castillo and Dionisio Usigan on May 25, 1989, in Lal-lo, Cagayan. The prosecution presented eyewitness Melchor Pulido, who testified that he accompanied accused-appellant Larry Consejero, a CAFGU member armed with an M-14 rifle, and Rommel Malapit. They encountered the victims fishing. After separating the victims, Consejero and Malapit took each victim away, returning without them and stating the victims were dead. They then stole the boat’s engine. Pulido delayed reporting due to threats from Consejero. The bodies were discovered the next day with multiple stab and hack wounds.
The defense relied on denial and alibi. Consejero claimed he was at a police station and later at a military camp on the night of the crime to secure ammunition for his unit. He presented a certification from a police officer and alleged the charge was fabricated due to a land dispute. The trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible and convicted Consejero of robbery with homicide.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Larry Consejero for the complex crime of robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Melchor Pulido credible, positive, and consistent. His detailed account of the events, including the taking of the engine and the subsequent killings, was corroborated by physical evidence and the medical findings. The delay in his disclosure was satisfactorily explained by his genuine fear for his life due to Consejero’s threats, a natural reaction given Consejero’s status as an armed CAFGU member and neighbor. The defense of alibi and denial must fail when weighed against the positive identification by a credible witness. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over such positive testimony. The court also found the elements of robbery with homicide present: the taking of the engine with intent to gain through violence or intimidation, and the killing of the victims, which occurred by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded high respect. The penalty was properly imposed, and civil indemnity was awarded to the heirs of the victims.