GR 136113; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136113 ; August 23, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILLIE QUIBIDO, RUEL QUIBIDO, and JOHN DOE, (All At Large) RODOLFO MONTEMAYOR ALIAS “DOLFO”, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On February 16, 1993, the body of Sofio Verguela was discovered in his house in Victoria, Oriental Mindoro. He had suffered fatal skull fractures, and his radio, blanket, wallet, and money were missing. Witnesses placed appellant Rodolfo Montemayor (alias Dolfo), along with Ruel Quibido and others, near the victim’s house around the time of the crime. The prosecution’s key witness, Emil Berganio, testified that he accompanied Montemayor, Ruel Quibido, and another (Bokno) to the victim’s house on the evening of February 15, 1993.
Berganio stated he acted as a lookout while Montemayor, Ruel Quibido, and Bokno entered. He witnessed Ruel demand money from Verguela while Montemayor pointed an airgun at him. When the victim said he had no money, Ruel struck his head with a shotgun, Bokno stabbed him, and the group then stole the victim’s belongings before fleeing. The group subsequently traveled to Batangas and Metro Manila to evade arrest. Berganio’s testimony was corroborated by the medico-legal findings and the sworn statements of other witnesses.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of appellant Rodolfo Montemayor for the crime of robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Emil Berganio to be credible, positive, and convincing. He provided a detailed and consistent account of the events, from the planning stages to the execution of the robbery and the killing, and the group’s flight. His testimony was corroborated on material points by other evidence, including the discovery of the body and the missing items. The Court rejected the defense of alibi, noting it was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. The fact that Berganio was initially considered a suspect but later turned state witness after being assured of immunity did not automatically impair his credibility, as his narration was coherent and aligned with the physical evidence.
The crime committed was robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as the homicide was perpetrated by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. The aggravating circumstances of treachery, nocturnity, and dwelling were present. However, as the crime was committed in February 1993 when the death penalty was constitutionally proscribed, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The appellant was also ordered to pay civil indemnity and exemplary damages to the victim’s heirs and to restore the stolen items.