GR 137949; (December, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 137949-52; December 11, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GEORGE “JORGE” BOLINGET y BAGTAN, ET AL., accused. ESTEBAN DOMACYONG y PAKSAY; RICHARD PALEYAN a.k.a. ERICK LUMAS-E y KIMONGO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Esteban Domacyong and Richard Paleyan, along with several others, were charged with Robbery with Homicide for robbing Victoria’s Supermart in Baguio City on May 28, 1993. The prosecution established that the group, armed with guns, entered the supermarket, announced a hold-up, and took approximately ₱140,000.00 from the cash registers and the owner’s office. During their escape, a shootout with responding police officers ensued, resulting in the deaths of P/Insp. Nestor Visitacion and Cesar Reyes, and injuries to others. Domacyong was apprehended shortly after the incident while fleeing, and a .45 caliber pistol was confiscated from him. Paleyan was identified as one of the armed men inside the supermarket who fired a shot and took money.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellants Domacyong and Paleyan for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution evidence, primarily the testimonies of eyewitnesses Nelson Nialla (security guard), Albert Lorenzana (bagger), and owner Tony Ang, was found credible and consistent. They positively identified Domacyong and Paleyan as active participants in the armed robbery. The killing of the police officers occurred by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, as the malefactors engaged the responding law enforcers in a shootout to facilitate their escape. This satisfies the elements of Robbery with Homicide, where the homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The defense of denial and alibi proffered by the appellants was rightly rejected for being inherently weak and uncorroborated. The Court also upheld the conviction for Illegal Possession of Firearms under P.D. 1866 against Domacyong, as the firearm was seized from him upon lawful arrest. However, following the rule in People v. Molina, the separate penalty for illegal possession was absorbed by the graver penalty for Robbery with Homicide. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing civil indemnity and granting temperate damages for the unproven actual loss, while deleting the award for lost earnings due to lack of sufficient basis.