GR L 18767; (May, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-18767 and L-18789-90; May 30, 1964
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MADRIGAL TORINO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Madrigal Torino was convicted in three separate criminal cases for robbery-related offenses committed in Zamboanga del Norte. In Criminal Case No. 3111, he and accomplices robbed the house of Pio Ching, taking cash and merchandise. During the robbery, a neighbor, Alfredo Ocao, was shot and killed. In Criminal Case No. 3138, Torino robbed Isidra Velez at her home, taking cash and household items. In Criminal Case No. 3268, he and others robbed the house of Demas Agad and Francisca Busca, during which Demas Agad was stabbed and seriously injured. The trial court rendered a consolidated decision, convicting Torino in all cases and imposing various penalties, including reclusion perpetua for the robbery with homicide. Torino appealed, raising issues of identification and alibi.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting Madrigal Torino based on the identification by the prosecution witnesses and in rejecting his defense of alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions with a modification to the penalty in one case. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. The prosecution witnesses provided positive and consistent identification of Torino as a perpetrator in all three robberies. Their testimonies were detailed and unwavering, even under cross-examination. For instance, in Criminal Case No. 3268, the witness Francisca Busca’s initial statement about uncertainty was taken out of context; she clearly identified Torino at the PC headquarters and during trial. The defense of alibi, claiming Torino was elsewhere during the crimes, was correctly rejected. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses who had no motive to falsely accuse. The Court found the testimonies of Torino’s alibi witnesses unpersuasive and agreed with the government’s refutation.
Regarding penalties, the Court modified the sentence in Criminal Case No. 3268. The trial court incorrectly classified the crime under Article 294(4) of the Revised Penal Code (robbery with serious physical injuries). Since the crime was committed by a band, it properly falls under Article 294(5). With the aggravating circumstance of band and no mitigating factors, the penalty was adjusted to an indeterminate sentence of 6 years and 1 day as minimum to 10 years as maximum of prision mayor. For Criminal Case No. 3111 (robbery with homicide), the Court noted the crime was committed by a band, which is an aggravating circumstance warranting capital punishment. However, for lack of the requisite votes for imposition of the death penalty, the Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court. The decision was affirmed in all other respects.