G.R. No. L-41022-23 January 31, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CECILIO FAMILGAN, BARTOLOME LONZAGA alias “Noli Lonzaga”, FLORENCIO SANCHEZ, CARLITO CARIÑOZA and JULIAN SANCHEZ, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants were charged with Robbery in Band with Homicide and Arson. The prosecution alleged that on December 24, 1970, in Argao, Cebu, the armed appellants conspired to break into the house of spouses Gaudencio and Gerarda Lanticse. They demanded and took P378.00, then fired at the spouses and Gerarda’s sister, Francisca Cutillar, killing all three, before setting the house ablaze. The cases were jointly tried after the prosecution’s motion to discharge co-accused Juliano Lonzaga to testify as a state witness was granted.
The trial court convicted all five appellants. In Criminal Case No. AR-168 (Robbery with Homicide), each was sentenced to death, with indemnity. In Criminal Case No. AR-170 (Arson), each received reclusion perpetua. The appellants interposed the defense of alibi, claiming they were elsewhere during the incident. The prosecution’s case hinged on the eyewitness testimony of discharged co-accused Juliano Lonzaga, corroborated by other witnesses detailing the conspiracy led by Florencio Sanchez, who resented Gaudencio Lanticse for refusing to sell him copra.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based on the testimony of a discharged co-accused and corroborative evidence, despite their defenses of alibi and alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The defense of alibi, being inherently weak, cannot prevail over the positive identification provided by credible eyewitness testimony. The Court found the testimony of Juliano Lonzaga, a principal participant, to be clear, credible, and corroborated on material points by other witnesses like Isaac Carupo and Loreta Lonzaga-Sakyab. Minor inconsistencies in peripheral details, such as the exact time Juliano left home or the date of an arrest, do not undermine the core narrative of conspiracy and execution; they may be attributed to normal lapses in memory over time and do not affect the established facts of the crime.
The legal logic is that conspiracy can be inferred from the concerted actions of the appellants. Florencio Sanchez, as the inducer and mastermind, proposed the plan during a drinking session, providing the motive rooted in business rivalry. The others, as direct participants, carried out the robbery, killings, and arson. The aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and superiority were correctly appreciated, justifying the imposition of the supreme penalty for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. The evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the defenses unavailing.