G.R. No. 212151 . February 18, 2015.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JAY HINLO a.k.a. “INDA Y KABANG” – (at large), Accused, RICHARD PALMA y VARCAS a.k.a. “INDAY ATET,” RUVICO SENIDO y HAMAYBAY a.k.a. “RUBY,” and EDGAR PEDROSO y PALASOL a.k.a. “LIBAT,” Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Sometime in the afternoon of October 14, 2003, accused Jay Hinlo, Richard Palma, Ruvico Senido, Edgar Pedroso, and Joemarie Dumagat were drinking at Senido’s house. Senido informed the group of a plan to rob the house of Spouses Freddie and Judy Ann Clavel. The plan assigned Palma, Senido, and Hinlo to enter the house, Dumagat to act as a look-out, and Pedroso to wait with a tricycle at the highway. In the early morning of October 15, 2003, they proceeded to the Clavel residence. Senido cut the cyclone wire fence, and they destroyed the kitchen door knob to gain entry. They took items including video compact discs, a microphone, and two leather bags. Freddie Clavel woke up and was assaulted by Senido hiding in the bathroom. Hinlo then stabbed Freddie in the abdomen, causing his death. The group fled, leaving some stolen items behind, which were later recovered by police. An autopsy confirmed the stab wound caused massive hemorrhage leading to death. An Information was filed charging them with Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Upon arraignment, Palma, Senido, Pedroso, and Dumagat pleaded not guilty; Hinlo remained at large. Dumagat was later discharged to become a state witness. The accused-appellants denied involvement, presenting alibis. The Regional Trial Court convicted them, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the conviction of accused-appellants for the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court found no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the lower courts, which are generally accorded great weight. All elements of Robbery with Homicide were present: (a) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons; (b) the property belonged to another; (c) the taking was with intent to gain; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery, homicide was committed. The testimony of state witness Dumagat was detailed, consistent, and credible, positively identifying the accused-appellants as perpetrators. Their defense of alibi, being inherently weak, cannot prevail over positive identification. Conspiracy was established; thus, all conspirators are guilty of the special complex crime regardless of direct participation in the killing. The penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, was affirmed. The Supreme Court modified the damages: 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, all with legal interest at 6% per annum from finality until full payment. The appeal was denied.