G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Alvin Esugon y Avila, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alvin Esugon y Avila was charged with the composite crime of robbery with homicide. The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the testimony of the victim’s five-year-old son, Carl. Carl testified that on the night of October 21, 2003, he saw the appellant, whom he called “Nonoy,” enter their house and stab his mother, Josephine Castro, with a knife. He identified the appellant as a neighbor who often visited their house. Carl stated that although the ground floor was dark, there was light from the second floor that illuminated the area through the stairway. He also said the assailant took money from his father’s pocket. The victim’s husband, Dennis, testified he was awakened by a shout, turned on the light, and later found his wife wounded. He had no personal knowledge of the perpetrator. Sharon, the victim’s sister-in-law, testified that Carl later pointed to the appellant at the scene and identified him as the one who entered their house and stabbed his mother. Police officers confirmed Carl’s identification led to the appellant’s arrest. The appellant denied the accusation, claiming he was at home and was awakened by the commotion. The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellant of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification to the damages awarded.

ISSUE

1. Whether the testimony of the five-year-old child witness, Carl, was credible and competent to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the crime committed was the composite crime of robbery with homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction for robbery with homicide, with modifications to the damages.
1. On the credibility and competency of the child witness: The Court ruled that every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. The party challenging the child’s competency bears the burden of proof. The appellant failed to substantiate his challenge. The trial court correctly found Carl competent after a voir dire examination. Minor inconsistencies in his testimony did not detract from its credibility but instead indicated it was not rehearsed. His positive identification of the appellant, whom he knew as a frequent visitor, was credible and bore the earmarks of truth.
2. On the crime of robbery with homicide: The Court found the elements of robbery with homicide were present. The appellant’s intent to rob was evident from the taking of money. The homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, as the stabbing occurred during the felonious taking. The use of force upon the victim was inherent in the act of stabbing her to carry out the robbery. The crime is a special complex crime under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, where the homicide is perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.
The Court modified the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. The appellant was ordered to pay the heirs of Josephine Castro civil indemnity of ₱75,000.00, moral damages of ₱75,000.00, exemplary damages of ₱30,000.00, and temperate damages of ₱25,000.00, with interest at 6% per annum on all monetary awards from the date of finality until fully paid.