G.R. No. 120366 January 16, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Domingo Baccay and Laureto Baccay, accused, Domingo Baccay, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Domingo Baccay and Laureto Baccay were charged with Robbery with Homicide for robbing Isabelo Jimenez of P2,000.00 and, on the occasion thereof, stabbing him to death and inflicting multiple stab wounds on his son Heherson Jimenez. Upon arraignment, Domingo pleaded not guilty, while Laureto was found unfit to stand trial due to mental illness. The prosecution established that on January 14, 1992, the accused went to Isabelo’s house to collect jueteng bets. Domingo entered the room where Isabelo and his crippled son Heherson were, winked at Laureto as a signal, after which Laureto drew a knife and stabbed Isabelo. When Heherson shouted and tried to help, Domingo held Isabelo by the hair while Laureto continued stabbing him. Heherson managed to box Laureto, disarming him momentarily, but Domingo picked up the knife and stabbed Heherson several times. The accused then took money from Isabelo’s shirt pocket and fled. The incident was witnessed by Isabelo’s grandson, Gilbert Turaray, and partially seen by Isabelo’s wife, Melchora Jimenez, through a hole in the wall. Domingo admitted being at the scene but claimed he was only collecting bets and ran out to seek help upon seeing Laureto with a knife. The trial court convicted Domingo Baccay and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay various indemnities and damages.

ISSUE

The issues raised by the accused-appellant are: (1) whether the trial court erred in holding the sworn statement of Heherson Jimenez as an antemortem statement or part of res gestae; (2) whether it gave undue credence to the testimony of Gilbert Turaray; (3) whether it erred in ruling that Isabelo Jimenez was robbed; (4) whether it erred in ruling that the crime was committed in conspiracy; and (5) whether it erred in finding the accused guilty of robbery with homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modifications. It held that: (1) the conviction did not rely solely on any dying declaration but on the positive identification by prosecution witnesses Melchora Jimenez, Heherson Jimenez, and Gilbert Turaray; minor inconsistencies in their testimonies did not detract from their overall credibility. (2) The testimony of Gilbert Turaray was trustworthy and credible, and the trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility is accorded high respect. (3) The element of robbery was established by Gilbert Turaray’s testimony that money was taken from Isabelo’s pocket, notwithstanding inconsistencies regarding the amount. (4) Conspiracy was inferred from the accused’s acts: Domingo winking at Laureto as a signal, Domingo holding Isabelo during the stabbing, and both fleeing together after the crime. (5) All elements of robbery with homicide were proven: taking of personal property with violence, belonging to another, with animo lucrandi, and homicide committed on the occasion thereof. The Court modified the damages awarded, deleting moral and exemplary damages for lack of sufficient proof and ordering P66,470.00 as actual damages for Isabelo’s heirs, while affirming the indemnity for death and restitution.