G.R. No. 89685 November 8, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDUARDO GALANZA y VALDEZ @ Ed, NICANOR BAUTISTA @ Nick, HUBERTO ALIMAN y BISNA @ Bert, REGINO BALANGUIT y CEBRON @ Budoy and LEO ROBIEGO y DULAY @ Leo, accused, LEO ROBIEGO y DULAY @ Leo and REGINO BALANGUIT y CEBRON @ Budoy, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Regino Balanguit and Leo Robiego, together with Eduardo Galanza (who remained at-large), were charged with Robbery in Band with Homicide for the killing of Dominador Limbo and the taking of P10,500.00 from his canteen in Bacoor, Cavite on December 16, 1984. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of Lourdes de los Santos, Limbo’s common-law wife and an eyewitness. She testified that in the early morning, appellants, armed with guns, entered their house under the pretense of buying cigarettes, announced a hold-up, shot Limbo when he said they had no money, and then took the money after ordering her to get it. The defense consisted of alibis and denials, with both appellants claiming they were elsewhere during the crime and that they were forced to sign incriminating statements. The Regional Trial Court found Balanguit and Robiego guilty as charged and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. They appealed the decision.

ISSUE

The main issues resolved by the Supreme Court were: (1) the credibility of the lone eyewitness, Lourdes de los Santos; (2) the validity of the appellants’ defenses of alibi and denial; (3) the existence of conspiracy; and (4) the proper designation and penalty for the crime committed.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision with modifications. It upheld the credibility of Lourdes de los Santos, finding her positive identification of the appellants as the culprits to be reliable given the favorable conditions of visibility and her lack of motive to falsely testify. The Court rejected the appellants’ alibis and denials as weak, self-serving, and unsubstantiated, especially when juxtaposed with the positive identification by the eyewitness. Conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt by their concerted actions in entering the house armed, announcing the hold-up, and fleeing together after the robbery and killing; thus, the act of one was the act of all. However, the Court corrected the trial court’s designation of the crime. Since only three perpetrators were positively identified, the crime did not qualify as Robbery in Band (which requires more than three armed malefactors). The proper crime is the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as all elements of robbery were present and the killing was intimately connected to it. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed as there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The Court increased the civil indemnity for the victim’s death from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.