GR 138937; (January, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138937 ; January 20, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ANTONIO ABES y YAMBOT @ “TONY” (deceased), SALDO YBAÑEZ y ACEBES, ROBERTO BONTO y MENDOZA @ “BERT,” RICARTE BUMAGAT y ORDONA, RAUL YBAÑEZ y ACEBES and SIMEON SILVANO, JR., y GUTIERREZ @ “JHUN,” Appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of March 20, 1994, spouses Antonio and Catalina Calaycay, owners of a grocery store, arrived at their residence in General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite. They were accosted by appellants Antonio Abes, Raul Ybañez, Saldo Ybañez, Roberto Bonto, Ricarte Bumagat, and Simeon Silvano, Jr., who were armed. Abes announced a hold-up, forcibly took Catalina’s bag containing the day’s sales of ₱90,000.00, and shot at her. Antonio Calaycay was stabbed and shot when he tried to assist his wife, resulting in his death. Catalina survived her injuries. The appellants, all known to Catalina as former customers or a former policeman, fled the scene.
The appellants were charged with the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. They pleaded not guilty and interposed the defenses of denial and alibi, claiming they were elsewhere during the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted all appellants and sentenced them to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of all appellants for the crime of Robbery with Homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The prosecution evidence, primarily the positive identification by eyewitness Catalina Calaycay, was credible and sufficient. Catalina knew the appellants prior to the incident and clearly identified them during the attack. Her testimony was corroborated by another witness and the circumstantial evidence. The defenses of denial and alibi were correctly rejected by the trial court for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially as the appellants failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene.
The legal logic establishes that all appellants are liable as principals by direct participation and conspiracy. Their collective actions—surrounding the victims, employing force, and carrying out the robbery which directly resulted in the killing—demonstrate a unity of purpose and design. The homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, satisfying the elements of the special complex crime. However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Court affirmed the awarded damages for civil liability.