GR 85178; (March, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 85178 March 15, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JESUS REPUELA alias JESSIE, JOLITO CAMARADOR alias BULI, and WENNIE CAMARADOR, and JOHN DOE (At Large), accused. JESUS REPUELA alias JESSIE and JOLITO CAMARADOR, accused-appellants.
FACTS
The accused, Jesus Repuela and Jolito Camarador, along with two others at large, were charged with Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. The information alleged that on May 27, 1987, in Mauban, Quezon, the accused conspired to rob the house of spouses Sotero Banagan and Norma Perez. By destroying the backdoor, they entered the dwelling, assaulted the spouses with a hunting knife, and stole cash and valuables amounting to P9,700.00. Sotero Banagan died from multiple head injuries, while Norma Perez survived her wounds due to timely medical intervention.
The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of Norma Perez, who positively identified Repuela and Camarador as her assailants. She testified that Repuela sat on her, covered her mouth, and struck her head multiple times with a knife handle. She witnessed both accused then attack her husband. The accused were seen in the vicinity earlier that day. Upon Repuela’s arrest days later, a stolen wristwatch was found in his possession. The defense consisted of alibi, with both appellants claiming they were elsewhere during the incident.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of appellants Jesus Repuela and Jolito Camarador for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the legal characterization of the offense. The Court found the testimony of Norma Perez credible, positive, and consistent. Her identification of the appellants was unwavering, both in court and in a police line-up. No ill motive was shown for her to falsely testify. Her account was corroborated by physical evidence: the fatal injuries to Sotero Banagan, her own wounds, the ransacked house, and the discovery of a stolen item in Repuela’s possession. The defense of alibi was rightly rejected, as the appellants failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to have been at the crime scene.
On the legal issue, the Court clarified that the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of “Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide.” The Court held that the special complex crime under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code is “Robbery with Homicide,” where “homicide” is used in its generic sense to mean a killing, whether qualifying as murder or homicide. When a victim is killed, all other injuries inflicted on others during the same robbery are absorbed. If no death occurs, the proper charges would be separate crimes of robbery and frustrated or attempted homicide/murder. Since Sotero Banagan was killed, the killing and the injuries to Norma Perez are integrated into the single complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. The appealed decision was thus AFFIRMED with the modification that appellants are guilty solely of Robbery with Homicide.