G.R. No. 88392 and G.R. No. 89978, June 26, 1992.
MANUEL ANGELO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Eleventh Division and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. ANDING PAULINO, MARCELO BERNARDO, LEONARDO LAYUG, CRISPIN PAULINO and PONDIT PAULINO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners (Manuel Angelo, Anding Paulino, Marcelo Bernardo, Leonardo Layug, Crispin Paulino, and Pondit Paulino) were among eleven persons charged with the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide for the death of Gavino Samaniego on October 18, 1981, in Paombong, Bulacan. The amended information alleged that, armed with an axe and pieces of wood, they conspired to rob Gavino Samaniego of cash and valuables, and on the occasion thereof, attacked and killed him. Five other accused remained at large. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted the six petitioners of the crime of Homicide only, finding insufficient evidence to prove the robbery. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The petitioners filed separate petitions for review, which were consolidated, assailing the appellate court’s decision.

ISSUE

The principal issues raised relate to: (1) the credibility of the prosecution witnesses; (2) the absence of motive; (3) the existence of conspiracy; and (4) whether the conviction was based merely on the testimonies of Antonio Samaniego and Pat. Reynaldo Estrella.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petitions and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals with modification on the civil indemnity. The Court held:
1. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding and the petitioners failed to show that their case falls under any recognized exception to this rule. The Court found no reason to disturb the credibility assessments of the trial and appellate courts.
2. The prosecution witnesses, particularly Antonio Samaniego (the victim’s son) and Pat. Reynaldo Estrella (a responding police officer), were found credible. Their testimonies were consistent on material points and were given sufficient weight. Pat. Estrella, as a disinterested witness and law enforcer, was entitled to great weight.
3. The alleged contradictions in the witnesses’ testimonies were on minor details and did not affect their credibility. The positive identification of the petitioners prevailed over their defenses of denial and alibi.
4. Proof of motive is not essential for conviction when there is positive identification of the perpetrators. The absence of motive does not preclude a finding of guilt.
5. Conspiracy was duly proven by the collective and concerted actions of the petitioners in attacking the victim. When conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all.
6. The trial court’s observation on the petitioners’ failure to testify did not lessen the credibility of their defense, as it was not the main basis for the conviction.
7. The trial court correctly convicted the petitioners of Homicide, not Robbery with Homicide, as the evidence did not conclusively prove the robbery. The killing was therefore classified as simple Homicide.
8. The civil indemnity for death was increased to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence, to be paid jointly and severally by the petitioners to the heirs of the victim.