G.R. No. 73044 March 26, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LITO PALINO y MERCADO and ARMANDO MANALANSAN y SANTIAGO, accused; LITO PALINO y MERCADO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Lito Palino, together with Armando Manalansan (at large), was charged with Robbery with Homicide for the killing of Marieta Guarizo and the taking of cash and jewelry from her house in Mariveles, Bataan, on February 3, 1985. Palino was tried separately. The prosecution presented eyewitness Arturo Manguil, who, alerted by a youth, saw two men ransacking the victim’s illuminated room. Manguil recognized the men, including Palino, from prior sightings in the neighborhood. With barangay tanod Rodolfo Cabiling, they secured the scene. The intruders fled, but Palino was later apprehended on a jeepney, where a blood-stained steel file and stolen items from the victim were recovered from his person.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Palino of Robbery with Homicide, imposing the death penalty after appreciating the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nighttime. Palino appealed, contesting witness credibility, identification, recovery of evidence, the aggravating circumstances, and the finding of conspiracy.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Palino’s guilt for Robbery with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the credibility of witnesses, the validity of his identification, the admissibility of recovered evidence, the presence of aggravating circumstances, and the existence of conspiracy.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses credible and consistent on material points. Manguil’s identification of Palino was reliable, as he had seen him several times before the incident and had a clear view under a fluorescent light. The recovery of the murder weapon and stolen items from Palino, following a valid warrantless arrest based on a fleeing felony, was lawful.
On conspiracy, the Court ruled it was sufficiently established by the appellants’ coordinated acts of ransacking the house and fleeing together, indicating a common criminal purpose. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was properly appreciated, as the crime was committed in the victim’s home, violating the sanctity of private residence. However, nighttime was not aggravating, as the well-lit room and the presence of awake boarders negated the finding that it was specially sought to facilitate the crime.
Nonetheless, the presence or absence of aggravating circumstances does not affect the penalty for Robbery with Homicide, as it carries a single indivisible penalty. Following Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code and constitutional prohibitions, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The decision of the trial court was thus affirmed with this modification.