G.R. No. 196256. December 05, 2016.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. WILLY VALLAR, HERACLEO VALLAR, JR. (A.K.A. ORACLEO VALLAR, JR.) DANNY VALLAR, AND EDGARDO MABELIN, ACCUSED, HERACLEO VALLAR, JR. (A.K.A. ORACLEO VALLAR, JR.), ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

On the evening of June 21, 1989, in Gingoog City, four masked men—Willy Vallar, Danny Vallar, Heracleo “Oracleo” Vallar Jr., and Edgardo Mabelin—arrived at the store of Eufracio Bagabaldo. Cipriano Opiso, seated outside, was accosted by Willy with an M14 rifle. During a struggle, Opiso unmasked Willy and was subsequently stabbed in the stomach by appellant Oracleo. The assailants then entered the store, declared a robbery, and took P15,000 from Pedrita Bagabaldo. They dragged Eufracio outside, where he was shot dead. Opiso survived due to medical intervention. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including Opiso and household helper Oscar Omac, who positively identified the accused despite their masks, having known them for years as fellow residents.
The accused, including appellant Oracleo Vallar Jr., denied involvement, raising alibi and denial as defenses. Oracleo claimed he was attending classes at Gingoog City Junior College during the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of robbery with homicide, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Oracleo appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the credibility of witnesses and the appreciation of aggravating circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant Oracleo Vallar Jr.’s conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modifications to the awarded damages. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that the assessment of witness credibility is best undertaken by trial judges and is accorded great respect on appeal. The positive identification by prosecution witnesses, who knew the appellant personally, prevailed over his weak defenses of alibi and denial. The Court found the elements of robbery with homicide conclusively established: the taking of cash with intent to gain through violence, and the killing of Eufracio Bagabaldo on the occasion of the robbery.
The Court agreed with the lower courts that the crime was committed by a band, as more than three armed malefactors participated, which is a generic aggravating circumstance. However, it modified the penalty. Since the crime was committed in 1989, prior to the re-imposition of the death penalty under Republic Act No. 7659, the applicable penalty under the Revised Penal Code was reclusion perpetua to death. With the aggravating circumstance of band and no mitigating circumstance, the imposable penalty was death. But pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the death penalty, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua without parole. The Court also increased the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages to the victims’ heirs in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.