G.R. No. 83466 . October 13, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELIZALDE CULALA y BOGNOT, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed on May 10, 1982, charging Elizalde Culala y Bognot with the crime of Robbery with Homicide. It was alleged that on or about March 14, 1982, in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, the accused, with intent to gain and by means of violence, force, and intimidation, took cash amounting to P100.00, an Ohm meter tester worth P400.00, tools and spare parts worth P500.00, and a bag worth P20.00, belonging to Eduardo C. Simoy. During the commission of the robbery and on the occasion thereof, the accused attacked, assaulted, and stabbed Eduardo C. Simoy with a bladed instrument, inflicting fatal wounds. The accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
The prosecution’s lone eyewitness was Juliana Celon-Simoy, the victim’s mother. She testified that at about 9:50 p.m. on March 14, 1982, she went to fetch her son. At a distance of about 15 meters, in front of Interworld Steel Factory, she saw two men. One man was picking the left pocket of the other while pointing a knife at his back. The aggressor then grabbed the bag from the victim’s shoulder and stabbed him at the back. Juliana hid at the gate of Skylark Plastic Corp. The culprit ran towards her direction, slowed down, and walked past the illuminated gate, allowing Juliana to see his face clearly from a distance of about one meter with the aid of light from an electric post. She later discovered the victim was her son. The bag was recovered, but the Ohm meter and P100.00 cash were missing. On March 16, 1982, Juliana positively identified the accused in a police line-up as the perpetrator. The prosecution also presented the accused’s extra-judicial confession, attested to have been obtained with the assistance of Municipal Attorney Celso E. Santamaria.
The defense relied on denial and alibi. The accused claimed he was at Bell’s Pub house in Monumento at the time of the crime and stayed until the early morning of March 15, 1982. He alleged his extra-judicial confession was extracted under duress, force, and intimidation and was only countersigned later by the Municipal Attorney.
The Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 172, convicted the accused of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced him to death. The accused appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that Juliana Simoy positively identified the accused.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing him to death.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.
On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessment of eyewitness Juliana Simoy. The trial court’s determination that she positively identified the accused was accorded great weight. Her testimony detailed how she had a clear view of the accused’s face as he passed in front of the illuminated gate where she was hiding. Her identification at the police station was not the result of improper suggestion; she voluntarily went there after hearing rumors of an arrest and, upon her own request, asked for a man with a bowed head to look up, after which she identified him. Her admission that she saw the appellant for the first time during the crime did not diminish her credibility.
On the second issue, the Court found the accused guilty of Robbery with Homicide. The eyewitness testimony was clear and credible. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over positive identification. Regarding the extra-judicial confession, the Court noted the testimony of Atty. Santamaria that he apprised the accused of his constitutional rights. However, the Court found it unnecessary to rule on its admissibility because the conviction was firmly based on the credible eyewitness account, rendering the confession merely corroborative.
The Court modified the penalty. The crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The trial court imposed the death penalty, citing the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery. The Supreme Court found that treachery was not sufficiently proven, as the attack from behind did not necessarily ensure the victim’s defenselessness without risk to the assailant. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.
The dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision was modified accordingly.