G.R. No. L-5478; April 29, 1954
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENJAMIN JISTIADO, ET AL., defendants; BENJAMIN JISTIADO appellant.

FACTS

Benjamin Jistiado, Pedro Floralde, and Timoteo Floralde were charged with robbery with double homicide in the Court of First Instance of Samar. The trial court acquitted Pedro and Timoteo Floralde but convicted Benjamin Jistiado, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, indemnifying the heirs of the deceased Pedro Badillo and Ana Onato, and paying part of the costs. Jistiado appealed. The prosecution evidence established that on the evening of August 2, 1951, spouses Pedro Badillo and Ana Onato were killed and robbed in their house in barrio Caaguit-itan, Allen, Samar. Witnesses Avelino Contridas saw Jistiado and two companions heading toward the victims’ house. Baltazar Mahinay saw Jistiado and his co-accused at the victims’ store shortly before the crime. Florentina Villamor heard Ana Onato scream, peeped into the house, and saw Jistiado aiming a revolver at Pedro Badillo, who pleaded for his life. Marciano Ortega also witnessed Jistiado training a revolver at Badillo. Ortega and other neighbors later heard gunshots and saw three persons leave the house. The victims were found dead, with Pedro suffering a fatal gunshot wound and Ana suffering multiple gunshot and stab wounds. Money kept in a canvass bag inside a trunk was missing. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Jistiado and his co-accused were attending a novena celebration in sitio Among from the afternoon until midnight of August 2, 1951, and then went to another house until nearly 4:00 a.m.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the prosecution evidence sufficiently proves Benjamin Jistiado’s guilt for the crime of robbery with double homicide beyond reasonable doubt, overcoming his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the judgment of the trial court correct. The Court held that the positive testimonies of multiple prosecution witnesses, who had no shown motive to falsely testify, overcame the appellant’s alibi defense. The Court noted that the trail between the appellant’s house and the crime scene could be covered in about 40 minutes, making it possible for him to have committed the crime and returned to the celebration. The acquittal of the co-accused did not discredit the witnesses’ testimony against Jistiado, as the failure to identify the co-accused could be due to varying circumstances of observation. Minor contradictions in the testimony of witness Florentina Villamor were deemed insufficient to outweigh the main detail of her story, considering her ignorance and the extensive cross-examination. The Court also found that the alleged motive of a prior minor incident involving the cutting of bamboo was insufficient for a false accusation but could have been the motive for the robbery. The crime committed was robbery with double homicide, aggravated by dwelling and nocturnity, with no mitigating circumstances. Due to lack of necessary votes, the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the indemnity, ordering the appellant to pay P2,980 (the amount robbed) to the heirs of the deceased in addition to the P4,000 indemnity imposed by the trial court. The appealed judgment was affirmed as modified.