G.R. No. 141737 . March 20, 2002.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO CARIÑO and GOYETO CARIÑO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of April 24, 1995, three men barged into the sari-sari store and dwelling of the Panis family in Tigaon, Camarines Sur. Floserfina Panis and her helper Milagros Behil were tending the store. Inside the house were Floserfina’s husband Romeo, daughter-in-law Mitos, and two young grandchildren. The intruders, later identified as appellants Ernesto and Goyeto Cariño and an unidentified John Doe, robbed the store. They turned off the lights, creating panic. Milagros escaped. Ernesto Cariño then attacked and fatally stabbed Romeo Panis. The assailants also killed the two-year-old grandson, Emmanuel. Floserfina, Mitos, and Milagros later positively identified Ernesto and Goyeto Cariño in a police line-up.
The appellants raised the defense of alibi. Ernesto claimed he was sleeping at his employer’s house in Naga City, while Goyeto asserted he was working in a gravel and sand business in a different location at the time. The trial court rejected these defenses, giving greater weight to the positive identification by the eyewitnesses. It found them guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellants Ernesto and Goyeto Cariño of robbery with homicide based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility, noting that minor inconsistencies in their testimonies did not detract from their core narrative, which was consistent, straightforward, and credible. The positive identification by three eyewitnesses, who had a clear view of the appellants during the well-lit initial stages of the crime, prevailed over the weak defenses of denial and alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only their presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Appellants failed to establish this impossibility.
The Court clarified that the crime committed was the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The original information charged “robbery with multiple homicide and serious physical injuries.” However, the trial court correctly convicted for robbery with homicide, as the charge for physical injuries was absorbed. The intent to rob was proven by the taking of cash, and the killings of Romeo and Emmanuel were committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The Court also affirmed the award of civil indemnity and actual damages but reduced the amount for burial expenses to a reasonable sum. Finding no aggravating circumstances sufficiently proven, the Court modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, in accordance with prevailing law.