G.R. No. L-36750 January 31, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MIGUEL REGATO and JOSE SALCEDA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of November 22, 1969, appellants Miguel Regato and Jose Salceda, along with Rito Ramirez (at large), went to the house of Victor Flores under the pretense of buying cigarettes. When Felicisima Flores, Victor’s wife, opened the door, Regato struck the lamp from her hand and pointed a gun at her, causing her to flee. The intruders then entered the house. The couple’s son, Godofredo, witnessed the events from a hiding place. He saw his father, Victor, being dragged and assaulted by Regato and Ramirez to force him to reveal the location of money. Simultaneously, Salceda ransacked a trunk in the bedroom and stole P870.00. When Victor defiantly called the men “robbers,” Ramirez shot him. The three then fled.
Victor Flores was taken to the hospital but died the following morning from the gunshot wound. Appellants were later apprehended and identified by prosecution witnesses. At trial, they interposed the defenses of denial and alibi, claiming they were elsewhere attending a novena and a drinking session, respectively.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the appellants are guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Subsidiary issues involve the correctness of the trial court’s rejection of their defenses, its appreciation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the propriety of the penalty imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide. The legal logic is anchored on the established conspiracy among the appellants and their cohort. Their collective actions—gaining entry by craft (pretending to buy cigarettes), jointly assaulting the victim to facilitate the robbery, and the shooting that immediately followed the victim’s defiance during the ongoing criminal enterprise—demonstrate a common design. The homicide was a direct consequence of the robbery, perpetrated on the same occasion, thus constituting the single, indivisible complex crime under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
The Court rejected the defenses of alibi and denial. Regato’s own argument on appeal—contending he should only be convicted of simple robbery—contradicted his alibi and amounted to an admission of presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, the appellants failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the Flores residence, as the distance to their alleged locations was merely 1.5 kilometers via passable roads. Their alibis could not overcome the positive and credible identification by eyewitnesses Felicisima and Godofredo Flores.
Regarding circumstances, the Court upheld the appreciation of nocturnity, as the appellants deliberately sought the cover of night to facilitate the crime. Craft was also properly considered for their deceptive pretense to gain entry. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong was correctly denied, as the force employed was reasonably sufficient to cause the fatal result. Due to lack of the necessary votes for capital punishment, the death penalty was modified to reclusion perpetua.