GR 73249 50; (May, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 73249-50, May 8, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DEMETRIO CABALE, FLORENCIO DANIEL, BENITO TERANTE @ “Bodoy”, and BONIFACIO CUALTEROS, defendants. BENITO TERANTE @ “Bodoy”, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of June 7, 1968, four individuals, including appellant Benito Terante, arrived at the store of octogenarian Rufina Rosello in Liloan, Southern Leyte. Two accused, Florencio Daniel and Terante, entered the store to demand money while their companions, Demetrio Cabale and Bonifacio Cualteros, fired shots outside. Upon Rosello’s refusal, Daniel and Terante dragged her out, strangled her to death, and later took her money box. Meanwhile, Ricarido Fernando arrived on a motorcycle. He was assaulted, robbed of P492.00 and personal items, and sustained injuries requiring 15 days of recuperation.
Separate Informations for Robbery in Band with Homicide (against Rosello) and Robbery in Band with Less Serious Physical Injuries (against Fernando) were filed. After trial, the court convicted Demetrio Cabale, Florencio Daniel, and Benito Terante, imposing the death penalty for the homicide. Bonifacio Cualteros was acquitted. Due to constitutional abolition of the death penalty and other accused’s circumstances, only Terante’s appeal proceeded. He denied involvement, asserting an alibi that he was in a different barrio guarding a copra drier at the time.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Benito Terante’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of Robbery with Homicide and Robbery with Less Serious Physical Injuries.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, modifying only the civil indemnity. The Court rejected Terante’s alibi defense. The time difference of only one hour between his claimed location and the crime scene did not make his presence at the latter physically impossible. His alibi was overwhelmingly contradicted by the positive identification of eyewitness Ricarido Fernando, who had a clear view of the perpetrators under bright moonlight and at close range, and who bore no ill motive to testify falsely. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, dismissing alleged inconsistencies as minor details that do not undermine the core narrative of the crimes.
Regarding the penalty for Robbery with Less Serious Physical Injuries, the Court agreed with appellant that the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was not proven to have been deliberately sought. However, the penalty remained correct due to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, which was not offset by any mitigating circumstance. Finally, following prevailing jurisprudence, the Court increased the civil indemnity for the death of Rufina Rosello from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00. The judgment was thus affirmed with this modification.