G.R. No. 139697 ; June 15, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LITO HERNANDEZ, appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Lito Hernandez, and his co-accused, Nestor Catapang, were charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The prosecution alleged that on December 19, 1994, in San Luis, Batangas, the two, armed with a bolo and a knife, robbed the 72-year-old Natividad Yuzon Mendoza of cash and jewelry and strangled her to death on the occasion thereof. The prosecution’s case hinged on the eyewitness account of Cesar Yuzon, the victim’s nephew, who testified that he saw the appellant and Catapang dragging the victim, robbing her, and then strangling her with a rope. Cesar initially kept silent out of fear due to threats from the accused but eventually disclosed his account to authorities in February 1995.
The appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He claimed that on the date and time of the incident, he was in Parañaque celebrating his birthday. He asserted he only learned of his aunt’s death the following day and attended her wake. He argued that Cesar’s testimony was unreliable and motivated by ill will, suggesting that the delay in reporting undermined his credibility. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of “reclusion perpetua to death,” prompting an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant for the crime of robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Cesar Yuzon to be credible, positive, and consistent. His relationship to both the victim and the appellant did not impair his credibility; rather, it lent credence to his account as he would not falsely accuse a relative without cause. The initial delay in reporting was sufficiently explained by the reasonable fear for his and his family’s life due to the direct threats from the appellant and Catapang. His detailed narration of the robbery and the strangulation was corroborated by the medico-legal findings of asphyxia by ligature strangulation.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected by the trial court. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. The appellant failed to establish this impossibility, as Parañaque is not so geographically remote from Batangas as to preclude his presence at the crime scene. Denial, being inherently weak, cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. However, the Court modified the penalty. The crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. In the absence of any modifying circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua must be applied. The trial court erred in appreciating the generic aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and disregard of age and sex, as these are already inherent in the commission of robbery with homicide and are not to be separately considered for penalty graduation. The award of damages was also modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.