G.R. No. 129288 ; March 30, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEY AQUINO y ACEDO, EDUARDO NEJAL y FRONDES and JOSE TRINIDAD y PROGRESO, accused, JOEY AQUINO y ACEDO, and JOSE TRINIDAD y PROGRESO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On November 13, 1994, at the Sportsman Retreat Club and Restaurant in Bauang, La Union, accused Joey Aquino, Eduardo Nejal, and Jose Trinidad entered the establishment and announced a hold-up. Aquino aimed an armalite at the owner, Gregory Bitmead, an Australian national. Despite pleas from Bitmead’s fiancée, Stefen Slaton, a confrontation ensued. Bitmead challenged Aquino, and shortly after, shots were fired. Bitmead sustained fatal gunshot wounds. The accused then divested the customers of cash and jewelry, including taking Bitmead’s belt bag containing P20,000, before fleeing in a getaway car. Bitmead was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.
The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimonies of eyewitnesses Stefen Slaton, Marilou Ortega, and Janet Ysip, who positively identified the appellants during a police line-up and in court. The autopsy confirmed Bitmead died from multiple gunshot wounds. The defense of alibi and denial presented by the appellants was rejected by the trial court, which found them guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellants for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimonies of the eyewitnesses credible, consistent, and positive, thereby establishing the appellants’ identities as the perpetrators. The witnesses had a clear view of the incident under sufficient lighting, and their identification was unshaken despite rigorous cross-examination. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over such positive identification. The Court ruled that all elements of robbery with homicide were present: the taking of personal property with intent to gain, through violence or intimidation, and the killing was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The homicide is regarded as a single component of the complex crime, irrespective of its purpose, as long as there is a direct connection between the robbery and the killing. However, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, as the qualifying circumstance of use of a motor vehicle was not alleged in the information. The civil indemnity was also awarded to the victim’s heirs.