G.R. No. L-4880; May 18, 1953
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Eutiquiano de los Santos, et al., defendants, Eutiquiano de los Santos and Alberto Bernardino, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of January 13, 1950, in Barrio Lambakin, Marilao, Bulacan, the household of spouses Pedro Pineda and Rufina Bernardo, including their sons Isaac and Maximino Pineda (the latter with his wife Teofila Manalaysay and child), was attacked. Between 9:00 and 10:00 PM, Rufina, who was awake, noticed dogs barking. When she went to investigate with a kerosene lamp, individuals below ordered her not to shine the light. Shortly after, three armed men (with six armed companions standing guard below) entered the house. They ordered the men to lie face down on the floor, tied Pedro Pineda’s hands, and ransacked a wardrobe, stealing cash, jewelry, a watch, and cloth valued at approximately P904, which they placed in a sack. After gathering the loot, they shot and killed Pedro Pineda and Maximino Pineda despite pleas for mercy. The robbers then left with the sack. Investigators found a fatigue cap marked “E.S.”, empty Garand and carbine shells, and a clip at the scene. The victims sustained multiple gunshot wounds. The perpetrators remained unknown for months until investigations led to affidavits and a complaint. The Court of First Instance of Bulacan found defendants-appellants Eutiquiano de los Santos and Alberto Bernardino, along with Norberto Gojo Cruz (who did not appeal), guilty of robbery in band with homicide, with aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and treachery, and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender for Bernardino, sentencing de los Santos and Bernardino to death. Both appellants denied involvement, presenting alibis: de los Santos claimed he was in another barrio looking for chickens, and Bernardino claimed he was at home sick.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution evidence sufficiently establishes the identity of appellants Eutiquiano de los Santos and Alberto Bernardino as participants in the robbery with homicide, overcoming their defenses of denial and alibi.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Rufina Bernardo and Teofila Manalaysay was deemed reliable. The court found that the kerosene lamp provided sufficient light (having a big wick) in the small room, allowing the witnesses, who were close to the appellants (as near as two meters), to clearly see their faces for an extended period (about thirty minutes) during the ransacking. Teofila also recognized Bernardino at the Constabulary barracks after his surrender. The identification was corroborated by prosecution witness Fidel San Felipe, who saw Bernardino with the group. The appellants’ alibis were rejected as weak and unconvincing against the positive identification. The crime committed is robbery in band with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and treachery, with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender for Bernardino. While the maximum penalty is death, the Court, considering the appellants’ youth and the moral decadence following the war, lacked the required majority to impose it. The penalty for each appellant was reduced to reclusion perpetua. They were also ordered to indemnify the offended parties jointly and severally in the sum of P904. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.