G.R. No. L-22426 May 29, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PELAGIO CONDEMENA, CASAMERO PATINO, SIMPLICIO ANIEL, RICARIDO CAUSING @ GARIDO, defendants, SIMPLICIO ANIEL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Pelagio Condemena, Casamero Patino, Ricarido Causing, and Simplicio Aniel were charged with robbery in band with homicide in the Court of First Instance of Leyte. After trial, all were found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Three accused withdrew their appeal, leaving only Simplicio Aniel as appellant. The prosecution evidence established that on October 6, 1962, at about 6:00 p.m., four men arrived at the house of Fermin Lamoste. Barcelisa Lamoste, the victim’s wife, recognized Pelagio Condemena and identified his three companions in open court as Ricarido Causing, Casamero Patino, and Simplicio Aniel. She testified that Simplicio Aniel and Casamero Patino were armed with guns, while Pelagio Condemena and Ricarido Causing had bolos. Simplicio Aniel rushed towards her, pointed a gun at her face, and threatened to kill her if she shouted. Meanwhile, the other three went to her husband Fermin. Casamero Patino and Ricarido Causing held Fermin’s hands, and Pelagio Condemena stabbed him. After the stabbing, the three dragged Fermin towards the kitchen. Ricarido Causing and Casamero Patino then went up the house, demanded money from Barcelisa, and took P200.00 from a trunk. The four men then fled. Esmeralda Lamoste, the 14-year-old daughter, corroborated her mother’s testimony, specifically seeing Ricarido Causing stab her father. Crispin Bactol testified to seeing four men go to the Lamoste house and later responding to a call for help, finding Fermin dead. Municipal Judge Jose P. Burgos testified that Pelagio Condemena and Casamero Patino gave sworn statements implicating themselves and Simplicio Aniel in the crime. The defense of Simplicio Aniel was alibi, presented through Benjamin Corpin, who claimed Aniel was with him selling salted fish in Wague, Leyte, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on the day of the crime. Chief of Police Felix Arañez testified that during his investigation the day after the crime, Barcelisa Lamoste initially said she could not identify the robbers because it was dark and pointed to other suspects.

ISSUE

Whether or not appellant Simplicio Aniel has been sufficiently identified as one of the four men who participated in the commission of the crime charged.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification of Simplicio Aniel by eyewitnesses Barcelisa Lamoste and Esmeralda Lamoste in open court was deemed credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court found the defense of alibi weak, as the witness could not account for Aniel’s whereabouts after 5:00 p.m., the time the crime was committed. The Court also held that the initial statement of Barcelisa to the police, claiming she could not identify the perpetrators, did not discredit her subsequent positive courtroom identification, as it was understandable due to fear and the traumatic nature of the event. The crime committed was robbery in band with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court found the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and abuse of superior strength to be present, but not nocturnity, as there was no evidence the accused purposely sought the cover of darkness. The lack of instruction and education was not considered a mitigating circumstance for robbery. The penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua to death. With two aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances, the writer’s opinion was that the extreme penalty of death should be imposed. However, due to a lack of the requisite vote, the sentence of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court was affirmed.