G.R. No. L-17388 October 30, 1965
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CATALINO ENRIQUEZ and BENIGNO ALCANTARA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Early in the evening of December 12, 1957, several persons entered the house and store of Siaba (alias Yu Siap) in Catituan, Malangas, Zamboanga del Sur. They inflicted severe injuries on Siaba and his housemaids, Edita Balingcasag and Flaviana Licanda, causing their deaths due to hemorrhage. Cash amounting to P500 and goods worth P166.10 were stolen. After an investigation, a complaint for robbery with triple homicide was filed against appellants Catalino Enriquez and Benigno Alcantara. The prosecution’s main witness was Ramon Mambi (alias Ambi Banin), a member of Siaba’s household. He testified that earlier that day, Enriquez was denied credit at Siaba’s store and left uttering a threat. Later, Mambi saw Siaba and Enriquez fighting with a bolo, with Siaba slashing Enriquez. Enriquez ran, and Siaba chased him. Alcantara then emerged from the store with another bolo, overtook Siaba, and hacked him. While Siaba was being carried to seek medical treatment, he identified Alcantara as his assailant to a neighbor, Nia Laya, before dying. The defense presented a different version. Alcantara claimed he saw armed Muslims near the store and heard shouts for help. Enriquez claimed he was attacked by a Moro inside the store. A defense witness, Albain Isnain, claimed a band led by Tapsirol committed the robbery and killings, and implicated prosecution witness Mambi as Siaba’s killer. The trial court convicted the appellants, sentencing each to life imprisonment and ordering restitution and indemnities.

ISSUE

The main issue raised on appeal is the identity of the malefactors, hinging on the credibility of testimonial evidence. A secondary issue is the sufficiency of evidence to establish the robbery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modifications. It upheld the trial court’s assessment of credibility, finding the testimony of prosecution witness Ramon Mambi plain, straightforward, and credible, especially as he was a first cousin of the appellants with no apparent motive to falsely incriminate them. His account was corroborated by Nia Laya regarding Siaba’s dying identification of Alcantara. The Court found the defense theories inconsistent and unworthy of credence. The testimony of defense witness Albain Isnain was contradicted by other witnesses and disproven by evidence such as the lack of disorder in the store (contrary to his claim of ransacking) and the presence of blood drops leading from the store towards Enriquez’s house, which supported the prosecution’s version. The Court also found the evidence sufficient to prove robbery, based on the testimony of Siaba’s widow regarding forced entry into a trunk and missing cash and goods. The Court held that despite the triple homicide, only one penalty for robbery with homicide should be imposed. It modified the judgment by reducing the restitution to P666.10, increasing the indemnity for each victim’s death to P6,000.00, and ordering the appellants to pay these amounts jointly and severally. The decision was affirmed in all other respects.