G.R. No. 212191 . September 05, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICHARD DILLATAN, SR. Y PAT AND DONATO GARCIA Y DUAZO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

On the evening of February 7, 2010, spouses Henry and Violeta Acob and their son Homer were riding a motorcycle home after closing their market stall. They were accosted by accused-appellants Richard Dillatan, Sr. and Donato Garcia, who were on another motorcycle. Dillatan declared a holdup and forcibly took Violeta’s belt bag containing P70,000. Dillatan then ordered, “barilin mo na.” Garcia shot the victims, hitting Violeta’s left hand, with the bullet piercing through to Homer’s chest, and later shooting Henry in the knee. The assailants fled. Homer died from his gunshot wound, while Henry and Violeta survived after medical treatment. The accused-appellants were apprehended and identified by Violeta at the police station.
The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and raised the defense of alibi. Garcia claimed he was working as a tricycle dispatcher, while Dillatan asserted he was at his bakery at the time of the incident. Their testimonies were corroborated by respective witnesses. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages awarded.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants for the crime of robbery with homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously applied the legal framework for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. It found all elements present: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another (the P70,000 from Violeta’s belt bag); (2) the taking was with intent to gain or animus lucrandi; (3) the taking was accomplished by means of violence or intimidation against persons (the declaration of holdup and use of a gun); and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, homicide was committed (the killing of Homer Acob). The Court emphasized that for this complex crime, the homicide need not precede the robbery; it is sufficient that the killing occurs by reason or on the occasion thereof, which was clearly established as the shooting immediately followed the robbery to facilitate escape.
The Court rejected the defenses of alibi and denial. It ruled that alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification made by the victims, who had a clear view of the accused-appellants during the well-lit incident. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible, consistent, and worthy of belief. The claim of frame-up was also dismissed for lack of clear and convincing evidence. The Court sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of use of a motor vehicle, which facilitated the commission of the offense and the perpetrators’ flight. The awards for damages were modified in line with prevailing jurisprudence, granting civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages to the heirs of Homer Acob, and separate indemnities to the surviving victims, Henry and Violeta Acob, with interest on all monetary awards.