G.R. No. 123456
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JUAN DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.

Ponente: J. PERFECTO

FACTS

Juan dela Cruz was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on January 15, 2018, in Quezon City, the accused, armed with a knife, entered the residence of the victim, Pedro Santos, and took cash and jewelry valued at ₱50,000. During the robbery, Pedro Santos was stabbed, resulting in his death.

The prosecution presented an eyewitness, Maria Santos, the victim’s wife, who testified that she saw the accused inside their house and recognized him because the room was well-lit. She claimed she knew the accused as a former neighbor. The defense, on the other hand, interposed the defense of alibi, claiming that the accused was in Bulacan attending a fiesta at the time of the incident, which was about 50 kilometers away.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, giving full credence to the eyewitness identification and rejecting the alibi. The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

Hence, this appeal before the Supreme Court.

—

ISSUES

1. Whether the eyewitness identification of the accused was reliable and sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the defense of alibi should be given credence.
3. Whether the crime committed was properly qualified as Robbery with Homicide.

RULING

1. On the reliability of the eyewitness identification:
The Supreme Court found the eyewitness identification unreliable. The witness, Maria Santos, claimed she recognized the accused because he was a former neighbor, but she admitted on cross-examination that she had not seen him for over five years. Moreover, her description of the lighting conditions was inconsistent. She initially stated the room was bright but later said only a small candle was lit. The Court emphasized that identification must be clear, consistent, and free from doubt. In this case, the inconsistencies and the witness’s admitted long absence from contact with the accused cast serious doubt on her identification.

2. On the defense of alibi:
While alibi is generally considered a weak defense, it gains strength when the prosecution’s evidence is weak. Here, since the eyewitness identification was flawed, the alibi supported by the testimony of several defense witnesses (who corroborated the accused’s presence at the Bulacan fiesta) deserved merit. The distance of 50 kilometers made it physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene at the time of the incident.

3. On the proper crime:
Given the failure of the prosecution to prove the accused’s identity as the perpetrator, the Court did not reach the issue of the proper qualification of the crime. However, it noted that for Robbery with Homicide to be convicted, the prosecution must prove both the robbery and the homicide, and that the latter was committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery. Since the accused’s identity was not established, the charge necessarily fails.

—

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Regional Trial Court’s conviction of accused-appellant Juan dela Cruz for Robbery with Homicide is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Juan dela Cruz is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.