G.R. No. 180507 November 20, 2008
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Nestor Bajada y Bautista, Victor Calisay y Loyaga, and John Doe, accused-appellants.

FACTS

An Information dated January 21, 2000, charged accused-appellants Nestor Bajada and Victor Calisay, along with a John Doe, with the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Serious Physical Injuries. The prosecution established that on December 22, 1999, around 11:30 p.m., the accused, who were overseers at the victim Antonio Villamayor’s farm, entered his house in Liliw, Laguna. Posing as a grandson, Bajada pushed the door open with a gun. Inside, the accused, with Calisay armed with a knife, demanded money, kicked Villamayor and his live-in partner Anabelle Asaytono, and robbed the house of cash and jewelry. Calisay then repeatedly stabbed Villamayor, causing his death, and also stabbed Asaytono on her left breast. Asaytono survived, identified Bajada and Calisay as the perpetrators, and reported the incident. The defense of the accused was denial and alibi, claiming they were husking coconuts until 11:00 p.m. that night and then slept. The Regional Trial Court convicted them and imposed the death penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua, holding that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was not specifically alleged in the information and that the serious physical injury inflicted on Asaytono was merged in the composite crime of robbery with homicide.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants for the crime of Robbery with Homicide and the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals in toto. The Court held that the positive identification of the accused-appellants by the eyewitness, Anabelle Asaytono, was categorical, consistent, and credible. Asaytono, who had known the accused for about a year from working together on the farm, was able to recognize them by their physical features, voices, and even smell, despite their attempts to conceal their identities. The Court found the alleged inconsistencies in her statements to be minor and inconsequential. The defenses of denial and alibi were rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially since the accused failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. The Court agreed with the appellate court’s reduction of the penalty to reclusion perpetua, as the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was not specifically alleged in the Information, and the serious physical injuries were merged into the composite crime of robbery with homicide.