G.R. No. 88300 July 6, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNIE LAPAN y CABRAL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

An Information dated October 6, 1987, accused Ernie Lapan, Florentino Bracamonte, and Manuel Reginaldo of Robbery with Double Homicide. The charge alleged that on or about September 23, 1987, in Cavite City, the accused conspired to enter the house of Violeta Sayaman Parnala, and by means of violence and intimidation, rob a necklace and ring belonging to Jay Vee Parnala Custodio. On the occasion of the robbery, they assaulted, scalded, and stabbed Jay Vee Parnala Custodio and Teresita Minorca Rosalinas, causing their deaths. Florentino Bracamonte and Manuel Reginaldo remained at large. Ernie Lapan pleaded not guilty, was tried, and was convicted by the Regional Trial Court, Branch XVII, Cavite City, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He appealed.
The prosecution’s evidence established that around 8:30 p.m. on September 23, 1987, Violeta Parnala and her common-law husband, Clark Din, returned home. After getting no response upon knocking, Clark Din stoned a window. Violeta continued knocking, and suddenly the front door opened, and three men—Florentino Bracamonte, Manuel Reginaldo, and accused-appellant Ernie Lapan—rushed out. Violeta shouted, and the men ran away. Clark Din and neighbors gave chase but failed to catch them. Upon returning, Clark Din, with police officers, found the housemaid Teresita Rosalinas dead on the bathroom floor, tied and gagged, and Jay Vee Parnala Custodio dead, immersed in a water container. Autopsy reports showed Teresita suffered one incised and six stab wounds, and Jay Vee sustained three incised and fourteen stab wounds. Violeta Parnala positively identified the three assailants, recognizing them as residents and acquaintances, under illumination from a nearby electric post. Her testimony was corroborated by witness Rosita Ordoñez, who testified that during the chase, Ernie Lapan shoved her while running.
The accused-appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at a birthday party at Leopoldo Pareja’s house, located about 200 meters away (a five-minute walk) from the crime scene, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on September 23, 1987. He admitted leaving the party for about five minutes to buy lambanog. His witnesses, Guillermo Papa and Leopoldo Pareja, gave statements that conflicted with his regarding whether he left alone or with someone to buy drinks.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely erred in giving more weight to the prosecution’s version and in convicting the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on positive identification, over his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and indemnity. The Court held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The positive identification by prosecution witness Violeta Parnala, who was in a state of shock and thus her identification was deemed credible, was clear and supported by corroborating testimony and the well-lighted locus delicti. The defense of alibi was rejected as inherently weak and unpersuasive. For alibi to prosper, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence that the accused was at another place for such a period as to negate his presence at the crime scene. Here, the place of the alibi was merely 200 meters away, easily accessible within minutes, and the accused admitted leaving the party briefly, making it physically possible for him to have committed the crime. The Court also noted inconsistencies between the appellant’s statement and those of his witnesses regarding his departure to buy drinks.
The Court modified the penalty. The crime committed was the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The term “homicide” in this context is generic and includes murder, and the number of persons killed is immaterial as long as the killings were perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The proper penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. As there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua. The Court increased the civil indemnity to the heirs of each victim to P50,000.00 in line with recent jurisprudence. The appellant was also ordered to pay Violeta Parnala P1,100.00 for the stolen items.