GR 144599; (June, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 144599 ; June 9, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. DOMINADOR WERBA Y RICAFORT alias DOMING also known as DOMINGO WERBA, appellant.
FACTS
On April 1, 1996, appellant Dominador Werba, armed with a short firearm, entered the house of spouses Alipio and Lucia Bril in San Antonio, Quezon. He forced Gerardo Bril, the son, to lie down and then proceeded to the room of Alipio and Lucia. He poked his gun at Alipio, ordered everyone to lie down, and demanded money and a gun. Lucia handed over ₱7,000.00 from a trunk. Appellant then went to other rooms, taking assorted jewelry. He later dragged the granddaughter, Michelle, and attempted to sexually assault her. Lucia Bril intervened and tried to wrest the gun from appellant. During the struggle, appellant shot Lucia in the chest, causing her death. Appellant then fled.
Appellant denied the charges and interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in Laguna harvesting rice from March 30 to April 2, 1996. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and imposed the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant of robbery with homicide and imposing the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and adjusted the awarded damages. The Court found the prosecution evidence, primarily the testimonies of eyewitnesses Gerardo, Alipio, and Michelle Bril, to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Their positive identification of appellant, whom they knew personally, prevailed over his weak defense of alibi, which was not physically impossible. The Court ruled that the killing of Lucia Bril occurred by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, as it transpired during her attempt to stop appellant from harming her granddaughter, an act intrinsically connected to the robbery’s context. Thus, the complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code was duly proven.
However, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The Information failed to allege with specificity the qualifying circumstance of “use of a firearm,” which is essential for imposing the death penalty under Republic Act No. 7659 for robbery with homicide. The generic allegation that the accused was “armed with a short firearm” was insufficient to meet the strict requirements for a qualifying circumstance that increases the penalty to death. Consequently, the penalty was lowered to reclusion perpetua, there being no other aggravating circumstances duly proven. The Court also modified the damages awarded.