GR L 45086; (February, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45086. February 19, 1986.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BAUTISTA DE LAS PIÑAS, CRISPULO BERJA, and ELISEO MALCONTENTO, defendants, ELISEO MALCONTENTO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of March 31, 1972, Renato Santander and his companions were accosted by six armed men, including appellant Eliseo Malcontento, while passing an anthill in Pavia, Iloilo. The group was robbed, and Santander was forced to lead Malcontento and two others to the house of his aunt, Aurelia Salcepuedes. Gaining entry, the armed men threatened the occupants, demanded money, and proceeded to ransack the house, stealing cash, a sewing machine, watches, jewelry, and store merchandise. Malcontento was positively identified as actively participating in the robbery, gathering the victims, threatening them, and personally taking a roll of money.
After the robbery, as Santander was carrying stolen goods away from the house, they encountered a group led by Patrolman Mamerto Mira and Councilman Federico Madero, who were responding to the disturbance. A shootout ensued. A shot from the robbers hit and killed Federico Madero. One of the robbers, Morito Lorque, was also killed in the exchange of gunfire. The appellant denied involvement, interposing an alibi.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant Eliseo Malcontento for the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Renato Santander and Aurelia Salcepuedes to be credible and sufficient to establish Malcontento’s participation in the conspiracy to commit robbery. The witnesses had ample opportunity to identify the appellant inside the well-lit house during the prolonged ransacking. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected, as the appellant failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, given the available transportation in Iloilo.
The Court dismissed the alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies regarding minor details, such as the order of entry into the house or which specific robber performed certain acts. These discrepancies were deemed trivial, referring to incidental particulars that are difficult to recall with perfect uniformity. The Court held that such minor variances, far from undermining credibility, actually indicate that the testimonies were not rehearsed and were given naturally. The homicide was a direct consequence of the robbery, committed by the conspirators to facilitate their escape from the responding authorities. All conspirators are thus liable for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. The appealed judgment was affirmed with the modification of increasing the civil indemnity for the death of Federico Madero to P30,000.00.