G.R. No. 96397 November 21, 1991
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MELENCIO “BAROC” MENDOZA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Melencio Mendoza, was charged with Robbery with Homicide and Serious Physical Injuries. The information alleged that on June 9, 1981, in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Mendoza, conspiring with others and armed with unlicensed firearms, robbed spouses Felipe and Eufrocina Alkuino of cash and checks. On the occasion of the robbery, Felipe Alkuino was shot and killed, and Eufrocina Alkuino sustained serious physical injuries. After pleading not guilty, the Regional Trial Court convicted Mendoza and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
The prosecution’s case, primarily through the testimony of co-conspirator Romeo Esquillo, established that Mendoza was part of a group that planned and chased the victims’ vehicle. Esquillo testified that Mendoza provided him with a gun and ordered him to rob the Alkuinos. During the robbery, a struggle ensued, the gun fired, fatally wounding Felipe and injuring Eufrocina. The defense presented alibi, claiming Mendoza was at his workplace during the incident, supported by time records and a certification.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant based on the testimony of a co-conspirator and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the legal designation of the crime. The Court upheld the trial court’s reliance on the testimony of co-conspirator Romeo Esquillo. While such testimony is generally viewed with caution from a “polluted source,” it can be sufficient for conviction when given in a straightforward, detailed, and unhesitating manner, indicating sincerity rather than deliberate afterthought. Esquillo’s testimony met this standard, providing a coherent narrative of the conspiracy and Mendoza’s active participation.
The Court rejected Mendoza’s alibi, consistently held as the weakest defense. To prosper, alibi must demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused’s presence at the crime scene at the time of its commission. Mendoza failed to meet this burden. The crime location was only a few kilometers from his claimed workplace, and the incident occurred during a lunch break when his absence would not be particularly noticeable. His evidence did not establish impossibility.
However, the Court corrected the trial court’s designation of the crime. The offense committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The infliction of serious physical injuries on Eufrocina Alkuino does not alter this denomination; it is absorbed as a generic aggravating circumstance. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus sustained. The Court also increased the civil indemnity to the heirs of Felipe Alkuino from P30,000 to P50,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.