GR 97913; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97913 ; October 12, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORBERTO CARROZO, et al., accused. CARLOS CARROZO, PRECILO MANTO, WILFREDO MANTO, and DOMINADOR ANTOJADO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
The accused-appellants, along with others, were charged with Robbery in Band with Multiple Murder. The information alleged that on March 14, 1985, in Javier, Leyte, the accused, conspiring and armed with deadly weapons, robbed Ramon Robin, Sr. of ₱5,000.00. On the same occasion, they killed Ramon Robin, Sr., his wife Herminia, and their three young children, Ramon Jr., Celso, and Flocerfina. The three children were placed in a sack and buried. The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the testimony of state witness Rodulfo Redubla, a co-conspirator discharged to testify. He detailed how appellants, as members of a group, lay in wait at the victim’s house, attacked the family upon their arrival, and committed the robbery and killings.
During trial, one accused was shot dead during arrest, another died of a heart attack, and one remained at large. The Regional Trial Court found the remaining appellants guilty as charged and sentenced them to death. On appeal, the appellants challenged the credibility of Redubla’s testimony, arguing it was uncorroborated and given in exchange for immunity.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based on the testimony of a co-conspirator turned state witness, and in qualifying the crime as Robbery in Band with Multiple Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the nomenclature of the crime. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Redubla’s credibility. His testimony was clear, consistent, and given in a straightforward manner, detailing the conspiracy and the specific roles of each appellant. The grant of immunity does not automatically render a witness’s testimony biased or unbelievable, especially when, as here, it is corroborated by the physical evidence and the sheer gravity of the recounted events. The defense of denial and alibi presented by the appellants was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness.
Regarding the proper crime, the Court held that the trial court erred in denominating it as “Robbery in Band with Multiple Murder.” The correct classification is the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. In this composite crime, all killings committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery are merged into a single offense of robbery with homicide, regardless of the number of victims. The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. With no modifying circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed. The decision was affirmed with the modification of the crime’s name.