G.R. No. L-7133; April 29, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARTIN LAROSA and DAMASO ROCAFORT, defendants. DAMASO ROCAFORT, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On March 30, 1952, the body of Eugenio Villerva was found in a brook in Rosario, Batangas, tied with stones. An autopsy determined the cause of death was shock from multiple trauma inflicted by a hard blunt instrument. Investigation revealed the deceased was last seen on the night of March 29 with his uncle, Martin Larosa, and his brother-in-law, Damaso Rocafort (the appellant). A rope used to tie the body was identified as belonging to Rocafort. Martin Larosa voluntarily surrendered and pleaded guilty to robbery with homicide, stating the amount stolen was only P5.00. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Testifying for the prosecution, Larosa stated that on the night of March 29, he, Rocafort, and Villerva were walking together. Rocafort struck Villerva on the head with a piece of wood, after which Larosa also struck him. After Villerva fell, Rocafort beat him further, took P5.00 from his pocket, and they left him unconscious. Returning from a gambling house early the next morning, they found Villerva dead. Rocafort then tied stones to the body with a rope, and with Larosa’s assistance, threw it into the brook. Rocafort presented an alibi, claiming he dined with Villerva and Larosa at his house, was dissuaded from accompanying them when they left, slept until midnight, and then went to a gambling house where Larosa later met him. This alibi was corroborated by his wife and son. The trial court found Larosa’s testimony credible and convicted Rocafort of robbery with homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and relationship, sentencing him to death.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Damaso Rocafort of robbery with homicide based on the credibility of the testimony of his co-accused, Martin Larosa.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court found no sufficient reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. The testimony of Martin Larosa, a co-accused, was given careful scrutiny. It was noted that Larosa did not testify as a state witness under a promise of immunity; he had already pleaded guilty before testifying and therefore had no motive to falsely incriminate Rocafort. On the contrary, as Rocafort was his nephew, Larosa had reason to protect him. Larosa’s initial conflicting statements were seen as the workings of a confused and repentant mind, and his subsequent testimony was candid and straightforward. His account was corroborated by other witnesses (Fausto Villerva, Felix Villerva, Gabriel Sacdalan) and circumstantial evidence, such as Rocafort’s failure to attend the victim’s funeral. The motive for the crime was established as robbery, as the victim was believed to be carrying a large sum of money which was missing, though only P5.00 was proven taken. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide. However, for lack of the necessary votes to impose the death penalty, the extreme penalty was reduced. The decision was modified: appellant Damaso Rocafort is sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000 (for loss of life) plus P5.00 (the amount stolen). The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.