G.R. No. 75366 , July 4, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS AMPO-AN, DANIEL ALBAÑA, DANIEL CHAVEZ, and PORFERIO CALAROM, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Carlos Ampo-an, Daniel Albaña, Daniel Chavez, and Porferio Calarom, along with an at-large accomplice, were charged with Robbery in Band with Multiple Homicide. The prosecution alleged that in the early morning of May 23, 1982, in Gandara, Samar, the armed appellants attacked the family of Pablo Caamod. The sole eyewitness, Leticia Caamod, testified that the appellants, after asking for petroleum, suddenly stabbed her father Pablo. She witnessed appellants chase and hack him. Appellant Albaña then entered their house, demanded and received money from her mother Rosita, before stabbing her. The appellants proceeded to kill Leticia’s three siblings. Leticia hid and survived.
The trial court convicted all four appellants, finding the eyewitness testimony credible. It imposed the death penalty, citing aggravating circumstances of nighttime, superior strength, band, and dwelling. The case was elevated for automatic review. During pendency, appellant Porferio Calarom died, extinguishing his criminal liability.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness, a child, and in imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Leticia Caamod’s credibility. Her testimony was clear, consistent, and given in a straightforward manner. The trial court properly conducted a voir dire examination, establishing her competence as a witness despite her young age. Her detailed account of the events, including the appellants’ identities, their actions, and the specific utterances made during the attack, was found to be credible and convincing. The defense of alibi proffered by the appellants was rightly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially as they failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene.
The Court found the appellants guilty of the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as the killing of multiple persons was proven to be incidental to the robbery. The aggravating circumstances of dwelling and band were properly appreciated. However, the Court modified the penalty. Following the constitutional prohibition against the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution , which applies to cases pending review, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity awarded by the trial court was sustained. Regarding the deceased appellant Calarom, his death extinguished his criminal liability, and the appeal as to him was dismissed, reserving any civil liability that may be enforce