G.R. No. L-21688 November 28, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SALIP MANLA, ET AL., defendants, SAJILI DIARUL, MACABANG (or IMAM KAMANG) GUSTAHAM, ADJAN GUSTAHAM, ABDU GUSTAHAM, SOLAIMAN MONAJIN, and ABDURASID AKONG, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves the robbery of the Macion family’s house and store in barrio Calais, Olutanga, Zamboanga del Sur, on February 8, 1960, which resulted in the homicide of storekeeper Raymundo Yuayan. The appellants, along with others, arrived in two vintas. Witnesses Diego Mahinay (the household cook) and Albino Abayle (a helper) saw the appellants, whom they recognized as frequent visitors or fish vendors, enter the store. Abdurasid Akong and Solaiman Monajin entered through the kitchen, while others entered through the main door. Mahinay witnessed Abdurasid Akong shoot Raymundo Yuayan. The group then looted the store. Felisa Yuayan de Macion, watching from an opening in the second floor, also witnessed the events and jumped out a window to escape. The appellants set up alibis, claiming they were elsewhere (selling fish or working on a farm) at the time of the crime. They were positively identified by three eyewitnesses who had no motive to falsely testify. The trial court convicted the six appellants of “robbery in band with homicide” and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of the crime charged based on the sufficiency of the evidence establishing their identities as the perpetrators beyond reasonable doubt, despite their defenses of alibi.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the positive identification of the appellants by three disinterested eyewitnesses, who knew them as frequent visitors to the store, was clear and convincing. The defenses of alibi, even if corroborated by other witnesses, cannot prevail over such positive identification. The Court found the alibis unconvincing and noted that alibi must be proved by convincing evidence. The crime committed is robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, aggravated by the circumstances of band, dwelling, treachery, and evident premeditation. The Court clarified that the offense is properly denominated as “robbery with homicide,” not “robbery in band with homicide,” with the element of band being a generic aggravating circumstance. The claim that belonging to cultural minorities should be a mitigating circumstance was rejected, as it does not reduce the awareness of the wrongfulness of robbery and killing. The death penalty was affirmed, with the modification that the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased was increased from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00.