G.R. No. L-36788 November 24, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SOTERO LUARDO, FELICIANO INDANGAN, RODRIGO BEDICO, PROCESO (NARCISO) CAPIO & ANTONIO BAYUBAY, accused.

FACTS

The accused, except Sotero Luardo who was separately tried, were charged with Robbery in Band with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. The information alleged that on August 4, 1963, in Badian, Cebu, the accused, conspiring and armed, forcibly entered the house of Severino Capacio. Inside, they assaulted Severino, causing his death, and robbed the family of P2,000. During the incident, Nicolas Capacio, another occupant, escaped through a window but was attacked by a lookout, sustaining injuries that resulted in frustrated homicide. The prosecution’s primary witness, Nicolas Capacio, testified to recognizing the voices and faces of the accused, including Bedico, during the home invasion, and identified Luardo as the one who hacked him as he fled.
The defense presented alibis and attempted to impugn Nicolas’s credibility, suggesting his identification was unreliable due to the nighttime conditions and his alleged failure to immediately name the assailants to investigators. The defense also highlighted that some accused did not flee after the crime but even attended the victim’s wake. A convict, Jesus Orlanes, testified in an attempt to exculpate the appellants by claiming responsibility for the crime himself.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of Robbery in Band with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, giving great weight to the positive identification made by Nicolas Capacio. The Court found his testimony clear and credible, noting he had the opportunity to recognize the accused because they lit a lamp and he knew them personally. His failure to immediately disclose names to initial investigators was reasonably explained by fear for his and his family’s safety. The defense of alibi was properly rejected as it was not physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene.
The Court also dismissed the defense’s argument that the appellants’ non-flight indicated innocence. While flight can suggest guilt, the converse is not invariably true; non-flight does not automatically establish innocence, especially when positive identification exists. Furthermore, the testimony of convict Jesus Orlanes, who attempted to assume sole responsibility, was deemed not credible. The Court found his story improbable, noting a lack of motive and his failure to pursue any share of the loot. The trial court’s factual findings were thus sustained, as appellate courts generally defer to the trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility unless shown to have overlooked material facts. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, but the civil indemnity for the victim’s heirs was increased from P6,000 to P30,000.