GR 126397; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126397 February 1, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANIEL MENDOZA CERBITO, VICENTE MENDOZA ACEDERA and JIMBOY CERBITO MORALES, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On September 3, 1992, four armed men, including the three accused-appellants, boarded a Philippine Rabbit bus along the North Expressway and announced a holdup. A passenger, Patrolman Edgar Ponce, resisted and shot appellant Vicente Acedera. In retaliation, appellant Jimboy Morales shot Ponce. Appellant Daniel Cerbito then approached the fallen policeman, shot him in the head, and took his revolver, wallet, and badge. The accused proceeded to divest the other passengers of cash and belongings before alighting at the Malinta Exit. Separate Informations were filed against them for violation of P.D. No. 532 (Anti-Highway Robbery Act) and for Homicide. The cases were consolidated. The prosecution primarily relied on the eyewitness account of passenger Concordia Pagdanganan, who positively identified the appellants and detailed their individual participation in the crimes. The defense consisted of alibi and denial, claiming they were elsewhere in Samar at the time.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellants for highway robbery and homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The positive identification by eyewitness Pagdanganan, who had an unobstructed view and provided a clear and consistent narrative of the events, prevails over the weak defenses of alibi and denial. The Court found her testimony credible, noting that alibi cannot stand against positive identification. For the crime of highway robbery under P.D. 532, all elements were present: the robbery was committed by a band on a public highway using force and intimidation against bus passengers. The killing of Patrolman Ponce constituted a separate crime of Homicide. The Court clarified that the death was not a necessary element of the highway robbery but a distinct act, as the initial robbery was already complete before the fatal shooting occurred. The appellants, having conspired to commit the robbery, are equally liable for the homicide as a consequence of their collective criminal design to employ violence. The Court modified the awarded damages, computing loss of earning capacity for the victim and disallowing the claim for the stolen watch due to lack of competent evidence of its value.