G.R. No. 88665 January 23, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. DESIDERIO SALAZAR y DACANAY and RUELITO TOBIAS y RUIZ, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves the robbery and killing of 72-year-old Marcelino Espayos in Caloocan City on April 13, 1987. The principal suspect, Merly Andrade, the victim’s paramour, confessed and implicated respondents Desiderio Salazar and Ruelito Tobias. The three were charged with robbery with homicide. During trial, Andrade was initially presented as a hostile witness, but her testimony was stricken off the record for violating her right against self-incrimination. She was later discharged as a state witness. Andrade testified that the respondents planned to rob Espayos of his ring and wristwatch, forced her to accompany them, and then attacked Espayos on the street, with Tobias hitting him with wood and Salazar stabbing him. They then took his belongings and later gave her P150. Her testimony was corroborated by two pork barbecue vendors.
The respondents presented an alibi, claiming they were at a drinking session in a house within the same city during the time of the crime, supported by the testimonies of the host and another guest. After a change in presiding judges, the Regional Trial Court convicted Salazar and Tobias as principals by direct participation in conspiracy for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the state witness and their defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the credibility of the state witness and the weakness of the alibi defense. The Court dismissed the initial inconsistencies in Andrade’s identification of the respondents, noting her early testimony was invalidated for violating her right against self-incrimination and her affidavit was inadmissible for being taken without counsel. When properly testifying as a state witness, she credibly explained her earlier confusion and positively identified the respondents in court. This positive identification prevails over alibi, especially when the place of the alibi is not far from the crime scene and the defense failed to prove the physical impossibility for the accused to have been at the locus criminis.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the principle of conspiracy, where the act of one is the act of all. The respective roles of each accused in the attack were immaterial to their collective liability for the complex crime of robbery with homicide, as the evidence established their concerted actions. The award of civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00. The appeal was dismissed.