GR 95756; (May, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95756 May 14, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISOLOGO EMPACIS, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Crisologo Empacis, along with Romualdo Langomez, Zacarias Solis, Carlito Antiga, and Bebe Antiga, was charged with Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. The information alleged that on September 16, 1986, in Barangay Kanguha, Dumanjug, Cebu, the accused, conspiring and armed with carbines and bladed weapons, attacked and stabbed Fidel Saromines to death and took P12,000.00 from him. Langomez remained at large, and Carlito Antiga died during the trial. After trial, the court convicted Empacis but acquitted Solis and Bebe Antiga. Empacis was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, ordered to pay a death indemnity, and held liable for the stolen amount. He appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE
Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Crisologo Empacis for the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution evidence, primarily the testimonies of the victim’s widow (Camila Saromines) and son (Peter Saromines), and corroborated by neighbor Balbino Bulak and the post-mortem report, established Empacis’s direct participation. The witnesses testified that Empacis and Langomez went to the victim’s store, ate, then announced a hold-up. When the victim resisted, both Langomez and Empacis stabbed him. The Court found these testimonies credible and consistent, and were partly confirmed by Empacis’s own admission of being present during the incident. The Court rejected Empacis’s defense that he tried to prevent the stabbing, finding it unconvincing against the positive identification by the eyewitnesses. The Court agreed with the trial court’s finding of conspiracy between Empacis and Langomez to rob and kill the victim. The Court also affirmed the presence of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, and superior strength, but modified the award by increasing the civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and ordering restitution of the P12,000.00.