G.R. No. L-36471 November 19, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS CAMBA y VELASQUEZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Carlos Camba was charged with murder with assault upon an agent of a person in authority before the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila. The information alleged that on October 10, 1972, in Manila, Camba, conspiring with others, stabbed and killed Patrolman Reynaldo Gongora, a uniformed police officer, while the latter was responding to a robbery-snatching incident on a bus. Camba pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court found him guilty and imposed the death penalty, along with indemnity and damages.
The prosecution evidence established that on the said date, three men, including Camba, boarded a bus. A passenger later shouted that his wristwatch had been snatched. Patrolman Gongora, a passenger, moved to assist. Camba, the remaining assailant, then stabbed Gongora multiple times, resulting in his death. The post-mortem examination revealed seven stab wounds, including injuries to the heart and lung, which caused his death. The trial court, in its decision, observed that the facts more aptly constituted the crime of robbery with homicide.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of murder with assault upon an agent of a person in authority when the facts proven allegedly constituted a different crime, and whether it erred in its factual findings regarding the identification of the accused, thereby disregarding his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the judgment. On the first issue, the Court held that while the information was captioned as murder, its material allegations—specifically that the killing occurred while the victim was “responding to a robbery-snatching case”—actually charged the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The designation in the caption is not controlling; the allegations in the body of the information govern. The evidence adduced also proved robbery with homicide, as the killing was intimately connected to the robbery (snatching) incident. Therefore, the variance between the crime designated and that proven was not fatal, and the accused could be validly convicted of robbery with homicide.
On the second issue, the Court affirmed the trial court’s rejection of Camba’s alibi. The defense of alibi cannot prevail against the positive and credible identification by prosecution witnesses Rodrigo Eser and another witness, whose testimonies were found natural and straightforward. The Court also noted that for alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Camba failed to do so, as he claimed to be in Barrio San Jose, Paco, Manila, which was not an impossible distance from the crime scene. The penalty for robbery with homicide, considering the aggravating circumstances of treachery and contempt of public authority (assault upon an agent of a person in authority), would be death. However, as Camba was only 20 years old at the time of the commission and the necessary votes for the death penalty were lacking, the sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The damages were consolidated into P30,000.00.