GR L 30354; (July, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30354 July 30, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CIRILO ESTANTE, JR., ET AL., defendants, CIRILO ESTANTE JR., defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Cirilo Estante, Jr. was charged with robbery with homicide alongside three others. The prosecution established that on June 12, 1967, Estante flagged down a passenger bus in Cabatuan, Iloilo. He boarded the bus, announced a holdup, and, with three armed cohorts providing cover, proceeded to collect cash and valuables from the passengers. From victim Vicente Forro, Estante took money and a revolver. After collecting the loot, Estante alighted but then turned back and shot Forro in the head at close range, resulting in Forro’s death. The total loot amounted to P506.00. Estante’s defense was alibi, claiming he was elsewhere during the incident and that he was not sufficiently identified by the prosecution witnesses.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the identity of Cirilo Estante, Jr. as the perpetrator of the robbery and the killing of Vicente Forro, thereby rendering his defense of alibi untenable.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court found the prosecution witnesses’ identification of Estante to be positive, credible, and consistent. Multiple witnesses, including the victim’s wife and the bus conductor, clearly identified Estante as the one who signaled the bus to stop, collected the items, and shot Forro. Their testimonies were corroborated by physical evidence and the autopsy report. The Court held that for alibi to prevail, it must be established that the accused was so far away that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Estante’s claimed location was not shown to be such an impossible distance from the crime scene. Furthermore, alibi cannot stand against positive identification. The Court agreed with Justice Abad Santos’s separate opinion that the aggravating circumstances of band, treachery, and despoblado were not sufficiently proven. A band requires more than three armed malefactors, and with one co-accused acquitted, this was not met. There was also no evidence the place was uninhabited or that the mode of attack was consciously adopted to ensure no risk to the assailant, which is required for treachery. Consequently, with no aggravating circumstances proven, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.