G.R. No. L-29383 August 17, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMADO CHANCOCO and JOAQUIN CHANCOCO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Appellants Amado Chancoco and Joaquin Chancoco, along with others, were charged with Robbery with Homicide for the death of Uy Dit. Before trial, accused Daniel Hermosa was discharged to become a state witness over the objection of the other accused. After trial, the Court of First Instance convicted Amado Chancoco, Joaquin Chancoco, and two co-accused, but only of the crime of Homicide, sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty. The appellants appealed, arguing the trial court erred in discharging Hermosa, crediting his testimony, and convicting them only of Homicide instead of the charged complex crime.
The prosecution evidence, primarily from Hermosa, established that on November 23-24, 1958, the appellants and their cohorts conspired to rob Uy Dit in his bodega in Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya. Hermosa acted as a lookout. Upon Uy Dit’s arrival, Amado Chancoco struck him, Joaquin Chancoco strangled him, and a co-accused hit him with a club. Amado Chancoco also struck the victim on the head with a gun. After Uy Dit was killed, the appellants took a key from him, opened an office within the bodega, and stole money. The victim’s body was later found with sacks of rice on it, and the autopsy revealed multiple injuries leading to death from skull fracture and asphyxia. The appellants’ defense was alibi.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in its judgment, specifically in convicting the appellants of Homicide instead of the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime and penalty. The legal logic is that when a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code is consummated. The trial court’s finding that the killing occurred during a robbery was supported by the evidence, particularly the credible testimony of state witness Daniel Hermosa, which detailed the robbery and the killing in a continuous sequence. The Court held that the defense of alibi could not prevail against this positive identification. The discharge of Hermosa as a state witness was proper as he appeared to be not the most guilty, and his testimony was essential and corroborated. Consequently, the appellants’ criminal liability should be for the complex crime, not simple homicide. The penalty for Robbery with Homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances proven, the Supreme Court imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. The judgment was modified accordingly.