G.R. No. 70446. January 31, 1989.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE ALVAREZ, WILFREDO BLANCAFLOR, FELINO ALETA, ORLANDO TONIL, FELIPE ZURBITO and ROGELIO PAGAYONAN, defendants, VICENTE ALVAREZ and WILFREDO “TOLENDOY” BLANCAFLOR, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of July 3, 1978, in Barangay Guinlothangan, Milagros, Masbate, seven armed men staged a robbery at the house of Barangay Captain Roberto Beloso. Three of the men, later identified as appellants Vicente Alvarez and Wilfredo “Tolendoy” Blancaflor, along with Felino Aleta, entered the house, announced a hold-up, and tied up Beloso and his guest, Victor Jabar. The house was illuminated by kerosene lamps, and the robbers made no attempt to conceal their faces. Appellants brought Beloso’s wife and child upstairs, where they stole cash and valuables. During the incident, the family maid, Evelyn Bacaresas, fled and was shot by Blancaflor, sustaining serious injuries. As the robbers were leaving, Severino Malapitan, Jr., a cousin who had heard the commotion, arrived and was shot dead by the armed companions waiting outside. The robbers then used Beloso’s wife as a hostage to facilitate their escape by motorboat.
Only appellants Alvarez and Blancaflor were tried, as their co-accused remained at large. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of Robbery in Band with Homicide and Physical Injuries, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering restitution and indemnity. Appellants appealed, contending that their identities as perpetrators were not sufficiently established by the prosecution.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the denomination of the crime to simple “robbery with homicide” under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court found the identification of appellants as perpetrators to be positive and credible. The well-lit interior of the house and the appellants’ failure to mask their faces allowed the victims, who were in close proximity during the prolonged incident, to clearly recognize them. The defense of alibi was properly rejected for being weak and uncorroborated.
On the legal classification, the Court held that the killing of Malapitan and the infliction of serious physical injuries on Bacaresas were integral to the commission of the robbery, executed to eliminate opposition and ensure escape. These acts thus merged into the single, composite crime of robbery with homicide. The fact that seven armed men participated constituted the aggravating circumstance of “band.” However, since the prescribed penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua—a single, indivisible penalty—Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code mandates its application regardless of the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The penalty imposed by the trial court was therefore correct. The appealed decision was affirmed with the aforementioned modification regarding the crime’s denomination.