G.R. No. L-67302. June 18, 1987.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO TORREFRANCA, SOFRONIO GILBOLINGO, ISAIAS DARO, TIRSO MELECIO, and OLIPIO ARELLANO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, along with Benedicto Botohoy, were charged with Robbery in Band with Double Homicide for the killing of spouses Vivencio and Flaviana Diaganon and the taking of money from their house. Botohoy was discharged to become a state witness. His testimony detailed that on March 25, 1981, the appellants, after drinking together, forced him to accompany them to the victims’ house. Armed with bolos, a sickle, a piece of wood, and a revolver, the group attacked. Gilbolingo hacked Flaviana to death and took money from her. Daro and Melecio assaulted and killed Vivencio in his bedroom. Torrefranca, who masked himself, supervised the robbery, and the group took bundles of cash before fleeing. The crimes were discovered the next day, and medical examination confirmed the victims died from hack wounds.
Post-crime investigations included Botohoy’s extrajudicial confession and the recovery of a blood-stained bolo from Daro’s residence via a search warrant. At trial, the appellants denied involvement, presenting an alibi through witness Abano, who claimed they were elsewhere playing cards. The trial court convicted all five appellants, sentencing them to death and ordering them to pay indemnity and damages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of all appellants for the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, particularly its rejection of the weak alibi defense, is accorded great respect. The alibi was physically impossible and uncorroborated, while Botohoy’s testimony was clear, consistent, and credible. The Court found his account detailed and reliable, especially as it was corroborated by physical evidence like the recovered bolo and the autopsy reports.
Regarding Gilbolingo’s extrajudicial confession, which he claimed was coerced and obtained without counsel, the Court noted that even if this confession were disregarded entirely, the remaining evidence—primarily Botohoy’s eyewitness testimony—was more than sufficient to establish the guilt of all appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The collective actions of the group, who were armed and acted in concert to rob and kill, established conspiracy. Each appellant, by their individual participation, is thus liable for the complex crime.
Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction. However, applying Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits the death penalty unless Congress provides for it for heinous crimes, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The indemnity for each victim was also increased from P12,000 to P30,000.