GR 21960; (October, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21960 October 18, 1977
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ZOSIMO EQUIPILAG, LIBERATO BAYOTLANG and RICARDO BAYOTLANG, accused-appellants.
FACTS
In the early hours of March 29, 1963, armed robbers entered the house of spouses Isidoro and Filomena Orillosa in Calape, Bohol. Filomena was confronted by a cross-eyed intruder who demanded money. After being given cash, the intruder proceeded to shoot and kill her husband, Isidoro, who was in an adjoining room. A second robber then entered, and together they ransacked the house, taking cash, jewelry, and other valuables while terrorizing the family members, including children, who were herded in the living room. The robbers eventually fled. The crime was reported, and Filomena provided the police with detailed physical descriptions of the culprits, notably describing one as cross-eyed.
Based on the descriptions, police suspicion fell upon appellants Zosimo Equipilag (who was cross-eyed), Liberato Bayotlang, and Ricardo Bayotlang. Their presence near the crime scene that morning was confirmed. A state witness, Pio de la Peña, positively identified the appellants as the perpetrators. The appellants were convicted of robbery with homicide by the Court of First Instance and sentenced to death, prompting this automatic review.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the robbery with homicide was reliable and sufficient to sustain their conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously addressed the appellants’ challenges to their identification. It found the testimonies of Filomena Orillosa and her daughter, Gabriela, to be credible, consistent, and detailed. They had a clear and sustained opportunity to observe the robbers inside their illuminated house, noting distinctive features like being cross-eyed. The Court rejected the defense’s argument that the witnesses’ lack of prior acquaintance with the appellants (except for Ricardo, a former customer) weakened identification; instead, it ruled this absence of motive made their positive identification more credible.
The Court also found corroboration in the timely and accurate description given to the police, which matched the appellants, and in the testimony of the state witness. It held that the failure to conduct a paraffin test or recover stolen items does not preclude conviction when the totality of the evidence establishes guilt with moral certainty. All elements of robbery with homicide were proven. The penalty of death was affirmed, but the civil indemnity was increased to P12,000 for the death and P1,500 for the stolen property, for a total of P13,500.