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

The accused-appellant, Lito Palino, was charged with Robbery with Homicide for the events of February 3, 1985. The victim, Marieta Guarizo, was found stabbed to death inside her house in Mariveles, Bataan, and cash and jewelry were stolen. An eyewitness, Arturo Manguil, testified that he was alerted to intruders in the victim’s house. He and a barangay tanod, Rodolfo Cabiling, went to investigate. Manguil climbed the outer gate and, looking through an elevated window illuminated by a fluorescent light, saw two men ransacking drawers. He recognized one as Palino, whom he had seen several times in the neighborhood the previous week. When the female boarders began shouting, the two men fled. The victim was later discovered dead from a stab wound. Some stolen items were subsequently recovered from Palino upon his arrest.
Palino, tried separately as his co-accused remained at large, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court and sentenced to death. He appealed, contesting the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the identification, the recovery of evidence, the appreciation of aggravating circumstances, and the finding of conspiracy.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Palino’s guilt for the crime of Robbery with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Manguil and Cabiling credible and consistent. Manguil’s identification of Palino was reliable, as he had a clear, well-illuminated view of the appellant’s face from a short distance during the robbery, and he had prior familiarity with Palino from seeing him in the area days before. The recovery of stolen items from Palino further corroborated his participation.
On the aggravating circumstances, the Court upheld dwelling as aggravating, as the crime was committed in the victim’s home, violating the sanctity of her residence. However, it disallowed nighttime, as the room was well-lit and the crime occurred at an hour when people were still awake, negating the finding that darkness was specially sought to facilitate the crime.
Regarding conspiracy, the Court ruled it was sufficiently established. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct agreement but can be inferred from the defendants’ collective acts. Palino and his companion acted in concert—entering the house together, ransacking it, and fleeing together after the homicide—demonstrating a common criminal purpose to rob, which resulted in the victim’s death. The crime is a special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, where the intent to rob is presumed to include the intent to kill if homicide ensues.
Finally, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The death penalty, being a single indivisible penalty, is applied regardless of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. However, pursuant to the constitutional prohibition at the time, it must be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The decision of the trial court was thus affirmed with this modification.