G.R. No. L-27431; August 22, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO HAMTIG, ET AL., defendants, FRANCISCO HAMTIG, EUTIQUIO HAMTIG and MARIANO alias ALEJANDRO OSORIO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On June 15, 1966, in Carigara, Leyte, the defendants-appellants Francisco Hamtig, Eutiquio Hamtig, and Mariano alias Alejandro Osorio, together with Francisco Gaston (at large), conspired and armed with guns and bolos, entered the house of Hilaria Vda. de Hondolero and her son Mastito Hondolero. They were awakened around 3:00 AM by noise from the kitchen. Mastito, using a flashlight, recognized the four intruders, including his brother-in-law Francisco Hamtig. When Hilaria emerged and exclaimed, “It is you Kikoy,” Francisco Hamtig shot her. The intruders pursued Hilaria and Mastito into a room, continued firing, and wounded Mastito on the forearm. Hilaria and Mastito escaped through a window. Antonio Dandan, Hilaria’s grandson hiding in the room, witnessed the intruders open a trunk and take a bag of money. Hilaria died on June 24, 1966, from her wounds. The defendants were charged with robbery in band with homicide and frustrated homicide. The trial court found them guilty and imposed the death penalty for robbery with homicide, deeming it unnecessary to impose a separate penalty for robbery with frustrated homicide. The case is under compulsory review.

ISSUE

The main issues are whether the trial court erred in: 1) giving weight to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses; 2) not believing defense witnesses; 3) finding Francisco Hamtig as the shooter; and 4) ignoring the defense of alibi interposed by Eutiquio Hamtig and Mariano Osorio.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties. The trial court’s findings on the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the identification of the appellants as perpetrators were upheld. The defense of alibi was rejected. The Court affirmed the death penalty for robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code and increased the indemnity to the heirs of Hilaria Vda. de Hondolero from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial court erred in not imposing a penalty for the separate crime of robbery with frustrated homicide. Applying Article 294(4) for the physical injuries inflicted on Mastito Hondolero, and considering aggravating circumstances, each appellant was also sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The decision was modified accordingly.