GR L 67823; (July, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-67823; July 9, 1991
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO MESIAS y SEBASTIAN, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On September 26, 1980, five armed men barged into the house of Vivencio Cruz in Quezon City. The victim’s wife, Olympia, was blindfolded and frisked. Their son, Marlon, witnessed through an open door as one robber, who was not wearing a mask, stabbed his father. The assailants stole cash and goods. Based on descriptions, Danilo Mesias was apprehended. He was positively identified by both Olympia and Marlon as the unmasked robber who stabbed Vivencio, leading to his death from three stab wounds. Only Mesias was charged with robbery with homicide.
At trial, Mesias interposed alibi, claiming he was sleeping at his sister’s house half a kilometer away. He also argued that the prosecution witnesses were mistaken, suggesting he had a “double” in the area, and pointed to a discrepancy between the witnesses’ claim that an ice pick was used and the medico-legal finding that a single-bladed pointed instrument caused the wounds.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Danilo Mesias for the crime of robbery with homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The discrepancy regarding the murder weapon was deemed inconsequential. The positive identification by the eyewitnesses, particularly the young son Marlon who had an unobstructed view of the unmasked assailant, prevailed over the weak defense of alibi. The Court found the alibi unpersuasive as the distance of half a kilometer did not preclude Mesias from being at the crime scene. The claim of having a “double” was unsupported by evidence.
The Court, however, modified the penalty and damages. It found the aggravating circumstance of dwelling present, as the robbery was committed in the victim’s home, which was not necessary for the crime’s commission. This would typically warrant the maximum penalty of death under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. However, owing to the constitutional prohibition of the death penalty, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The awards for compensatory damages, moral damages, and loss of earning capacity were deleted for lack of sufficient proof, but civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.