GR 92020; (October, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 92020 October 19, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELISEO MARTINADO y AGUILLON, HERMOGENES MARTINADO y AGUILLON and JOHN DOE, alias “ROLLY”, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Eliseo Martinado and Hermogenes Martinado, together with a John Doe alias “Rolly” (at large), were charged with Robbery with Homicide in a Second Amended Information. They were accused of conspiring to attack and stab Juan Matias y Reyes with a sharp pointed instrument, and robbing him of a Seiko watch, a men’s ring, and a wallet containing cash, with a total value of P5,100.00, which resulted in Matias’s death. Both accused pleaded not guilty. During trial, Eliseo escaped from the Kalookan City Jail on August 6, 1988. The trial court promulgated its decision convicting both accused on February 22, 1989, in absentia for Eliseo. Eliseo was rearrested on April 10, 1989. Their counsel filed a notice of appeal for both accused in March 1989. The prosecution’s evidence included eyewitness testimonies from Margarita Padrinao and Elizabeth Carillo, who identified the appellants as being at the victim’s sari-sari store and participating in the stabbing.
ISSUE
The primary issues resolved were: (1) The propriety of giving due course to Eliseo Martinado’s appeal despite his escape during trial; and (2) Whether the evidence proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court gave due course to Eliseo Martinado’s appeal. While citing the doctrine in People vs. Mapalao that an escapee loses his right to appeal unless he surrenders or is arrested within 15 days from notice of judgment, the Court ruled that this new doctrine should not be applied retroactively to Eliseo, as it would be prejudicial. His appeal was therefore allowed prospectively.
On the merits, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. It found the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the positive and credible eyewitness identifications by Margarita Padrinao and Elizabeth Carillo, sufficient to establish the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the appellants’ defenses of denial and alibi, noting their failure to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. The Court found conspiracy evident from the appellants’ coordinated actions in stabbing the victim. The crime was properly classified as Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as the homicide was committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery. The penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and the awards for indemnity and restitution were affirmed.