G.R. No. L-56973 August 30, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SABENIANO LOBETANIA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

In the evening of August 3, 1972, Teonito Cordita, Sabeniano Lobetania, and a person named Sebastian visited the house of spouses Santos Cabutaje and Nelia Gerona in Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, to buy a pig. The spouses offered them supper and lodging. At around 4 a.m. the next day, Nelia and her son Wencefredo were awakened by Santos, who was bleeding from a stab wound; he soon died. Lobetania and his companions then demanded and received P3,000 from Nelia, returning P80 before fleeing. Nelia and Wencefredo reported the crime, initially identifying the assailants only as “Rudy Sumuok” and “John Doe” in their affidavits.
Lobetania was arrested in January 1975 in Surigao del Sur, where he was using the alias “Benben Sanipa.” During a confrontation at the Constabulary headquarters, Nelia and Wencefredo positively identified him as “Rudy Sumuok,” one of the malefactors who had eaten and slept in their house. At trial, Lobetania interposed an alibi, claiming he was working as a carpenter in Davao del Norte at the time, but he presented no corroborating witness and his documentary evidence was deemed unreliable.

ISSUE

The decisive issue is whether Lobetania was positively identified as a participant in the robbery with homicide, and whether the killing was committed on the occasion of the robbery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by Nelia and Wencefredo is credible and reliable. They had sufficient time to observe Lobetania’s features during the approximately eight hours he was in their home, noting his build, a mole on his cheek, and a scar on his ear. Their initial affidavits mentioning only two robbers were clarified in court; they had named Cordita, but the police investigator omitted him. This discrepancy does not undermine their consistent in-court identification of Lobetania. His uncorroborated alibi, supported only by dubious documents, cannot prevail over this positive identification.
The Court also found that the killing was integral to the robbery. The malefactors first stabbed Santos Cabutaje to eliminate any hindrance before demanding money from Nelia, clearly establishing the nexus for the complex crime of robbery with homicide. The crime was aggravated by treachery, dwelling, and obvious ungratefulness. While the death penalty was warranted, for lack of necessary votes, it was commuted to reclusion perpetua. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed.