G.R. No. L-1753; April 12, 1950
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FAUSTINO ESTEFA Y ALCANTARA, ET AL., defendants. FAUSTINO ESTEFA Y ALCANTARA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of September 17, 1946, Faustino Estefa, together with Gerardo de la Peña and Gonzalo Manalang, armed with revolvers, entered the house of Cornelius Fisher in Pasay. They held Fisher, his wife Mercedes, their children, and three maids at gunpoint. While Estefa guarded them, his companions ransacked the house. When the children cried out, Fisher grappled with Estefa, and his wife tried to seize Estefa’s gun. Manalang then appeared and shot Fisher twice. As Fisher weakened, De la Peña fired another shot, killing him. The robbers stole cash and personal items. After trial, the court convicted Estefa of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Estefa appealed, challenging the identification by Mercedes Fisher and the admissibility of his co-accused’s confessions.

ISSUE

1. Whether the eyewitness identification of the accused by Mercedes Fisher was reliable.
2. Whether the confessions of the co-accused were admissible.
3. Whether the penalty imposed on Estefa, who was a minor at the time of the crime, was correct.

RULING

1. Yes, the identification was reliable. The Court found Mercedes Fisher’s identification credible. She had multiple opportunities to observe the accused under sufficient lighting from adjacent rooms and houses during the prolonged ordeal. Her ability to identify them without hesitation, and her refusal to falsely implicate another person presented to her, demonstrated her clear memory and lack of vengeful motive.
2. The issue on the admissibility of the confessions was not pivotal. The Court found the conviction could be sustained based on the positive identification by the eyewitness, making a detailed ruling on the confessions unnecessary for the disposition of the case.
3. No, the penalty was incorrect but must be reduced. Estefa was 17 years old at the time of the crime. Under Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over 15 but under 18 years old shall be given a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed by law. The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the one-degree reduction and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper penalty is an indeterminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The appealed judgment was modified accordingly.

AI Generated by Armztrong.