G.R. No. 118944 August 20, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMULO VERZOSA y GARCIA and JERRY AVENDAÑO y MENDOZA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On April 21, 1994, at around 9:00 a.m., a passenger jeepney cruising along C-3 Road, North Bay Boulevard, Navotas, Metro Manila, was held up. Appellant Romulo Verzosa announced the holdup, grabbed the necklace of passenger Alberto Aplaon, and was subsequently disarmed by Aplaon. Appellant Jerry Avendaño, seated at the rear, then shot Aplaon in the back of the head, causing his death. One of the perpetrators also snatched a passenger’s wristwatch before they fled. Eyewitness Arthur Dojenas reported the incident to the police. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. An autopsy confirmed death from a gunshot wound. On May 1, 1994, Verzosa was apprehended after being identified by another robbery victim, Lito Francisco. Dojenas later positively identified Verzosa in a police line-up as the one who grabbed Aplaon’s necklace. Avendaño was apprehended on May 3, 1994, and was similarly identified by Dojenas in a line-up as the shooter. Both appellants pleaded not guilty and interposed alibis. Verzosa claimed he was vending prawns at the time and was later falsely arrested. Avendaño claimed he was at a job recruitment agency in Ermita, Manila, at the time of the crime. The Regional Trial Court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of highway robbery with homicide under Presidential Decree No. 532 and sentenced them to life imprisonment, plus payment of civil indemnity and damages.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellants Romulo Verzosa and Jerry Avendaño of the crime charged based on the eyewitness identification.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the legal basis and penalty. The Court held that the eyewitness identification by Arthur Dojenas was credible and reliable. Dojenas had a clear and unobstructed view of the appellants during the incident, provided a detailed account, and positively identified them in police line-ups without hesitation. The Court found the appellants’ alibis weak and unsubstantiated. However, the Court ruled that the crime committed was not highway robbery under P.D. No. 532, as the essential element of the offense being committed on a “highway” as defined by the decree was not sufficiently proven. Instead, the crime was properly classified as simple robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed. The civil liabilities awarded by the trial court were affirmed, with the addition of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The dispositive portion was modified to find appellants guilty of robbery with homicide under the Revised Penal Code and to sentence them each to reclusion perpetua, with joint and several liability for the civil indemnity and damages.