G.R. No. L-27422, January 30, 1984
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Damaso Sarabia, Domingo Quitoriano, Virgilio Baldiviso, Herminio Baldiviso, Francisco Crisostomo, Teotimo Crisostomo and Cirilo Advincula, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

The accused were charged with robbery in band with double homicide for an incident on November 11, 1960, in Buguey, Cagayan. It was alleged that, armed with weapons, they entered the house of spouses Vicente Lazo and Consolatres Carpio, stole P500.00, and killed the couple. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from the victims’ daughter Felicidad, detailed how the accused, including the late Federico Foronda, gained entry, tied Vicente Lazo, ransacked the house, and stabbed the spouses to death. The defense of the appellants consisted of alibis, with each claiming to have been elsewhere during the crime.
The trial spanned several years with multiple judges presiding. The Court of First Instance found all accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced each to death. The case was automatically elevated to the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the guilt of the appellants for the crime of robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the correctness of the penalty imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimony of Felicidad Lazo, to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish guilt. The Court rejected the appellants’ alibis, noting they were not physically impossible and were uncorroborated. The defense’s claim that the witness could not have identified the assailants due to darkness was dismissed, as the evidence showed illumination from a kerosene lamp inside the house.
Regarding the penalty, the Court sustained the trial court’s finding of the qualifying circumstance of band, as more than three armed malefactors committed the crime. However, the Court, exercising its discretion and considering the appellants had been under detention since November 1960 (except for periods when two were on bail), deemed the imposition of the death penalty inappropriate. The Court emphasized the prolonged detention, stating it was “unwilling to affirm the penalty.” Consequently, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court also increased the civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and recommended executive clemency, a recommendation with which two Justices disagreed in separate concurring opinions.