GR L 46724; (July, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-46724; July 31, 1987
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAMERTO SERANTE alias “MAMER,” LORETO ANCHETA and FERNANDO ANCHETA, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
On April 9, 1975, appellants Mamerto Serante, Loreto Ancheta, and Fernando Ancheta entered the Sicuan family’s store in Carranglan, Nueva Ecija. After ordering coffee, they revealed firearms and announced a robbery. Serante and Loreto Ancheta herded the family, including Anselmo Sicuan, into a sleeping quarters, demanded money, and took P20.00. They then dragged Anselmo Sicuan outside. Barrio Captain Eugenio Tambalque, on patrol, arrived and identified Serante. Upon confrontation, Serante shot Tambalque, grazing his forehead and hitting his palm. Other shots followed, mortally wounding Anselmo Sicuan. The appellants then fled.
The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including the victim’s daughter Lucita and widow Lucena, who positively identified the appellants. The defense relied on alibi, claiming they were elsewhere. The trial court found them guilty of robbery with homicide and physical injuries, imposing the death penalty, citing the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based on the prosecution’s evidence and in imposing the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The positive identification by eyewitnesses, who had ample opportunity to observe the appellants during the well-lit incident, was deemed credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found no merit in the defense of alibi, as the appellants failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. The relationship of the witnesses to the victim does not automatically impair their credibility, especially when their testimonies are clear and consistent.
Regarding the penalty, the Court held that the crime of robbery with homicide is a special complex crime punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The trial court erroneously appreciated nighttime as an aggravating circumstance, as it was not shown to have been deliberately sought to facilitate the crime. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Applying the 1987 Constitution , which abolished the death penalty, the Court sentenced each appellant to reclusion perpetua. They were also ordered to pay jointly an increased indemnity of P30,000.00 to the victim’s heirs, plus P3,000.00 for funeral expenses.