G.R. No. 99355 August 11, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINGO SALAZAR y SEROMA, alias “INGGO,” MONCHITO GOTANGUGAN y SEVILLA alias “MONCHING” and JOHN DOE, accused, DOMINGO SALAZAR y SEROMA alias “INGGO” and MONCHITO GOTANGUGAN y SEVILLA alias “MONCHING,” accused-appellants.

FACTS

On March 10, 1989, around 3:30 a.m., prosecution eyewitnesses Vicente Miranda, Jr. and Pedro Soriano saw appellants Domingo Salazar and Monchito Gotangugan, with an unidentified companion, approach security guard Crispin Gatmen at his post in front of Linda’s Supermarket along Visayas Avenue, Quezon City. Miranda saw Salazar pull out a dagger and pass it to Gotangugan, who then suddenly stabbed Gatmen repeatedly inside the guardhouse. Soriano, from a distance of 10-15 meters, heard moans and saw the stabbing. During the attack, Salazar stood close by and their companion acted as lookout. After the stabbing, both witnesses saw Salazar take Gatmen’s .38 caliber revolver. Gatmen died from multiple stab wounds. Appellants were charged with robbery with homicide. At trial, they interposed the defense of alibi. Salazar claimed he was sleeping at home with his wife and father-in-law. Gotangugan claimed he was in Lucena City at the time. The trial court convicted both appellants of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, plus damages.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellants are guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted appellants of robbery with homicide but found them guilty of the separate crimes of homicide and theft. The Court held that for a conviction of robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove that the main purpose of the culprits was the taking of personal property (asportation) and that the killing was merely incidental to the robbery. In this case, the evidence showed that the killing of the security guard was not incidental to a robbery, but was the main objective. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses established that the appellants, together with a companion, immediately attacked and stabbed Gatmen upon approaching him. The taking of the revolver occurred only after the guard had been mortally stabbed and was clearly an afterthought. The sequence of events—immediate and violent attack followed by the taking of the firearm—did not convincingly prove that the appellants’ primary intent was robbery. Therefore, the elements of the special complex crime were not met. The Court found the appellants guilty of homicide for the killing and theft for the taking of the revolver, and imposed the corresponding penalties. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected by the trial court as it was not physically impossible for the appellants to have been at the crime scene, and the positive identification by credible eyewitnesses prevailed.