G.R. No. L-864; September 16, 1947
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado, vs. MARIANO PATRICIO, acusado-apelante.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Mariano Patricio, appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Batangas convicting him of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, the accessory penalties, an indemnity of P2,000 to the heirs of the deceased Bonifacia Petate, and costs. The established facts are: Around 11:00 PM on May 16, 1945, Roman Petate, his wife, and their four children were asleep in their house in Campahoyan, Talisay, Batangas, when they were awakened by gunshots and barking dogs. Two armed men forcibly entered the hut, demanded the family’s bull, and threatened them. Arcadio Petate, terrified, pointed out and led them to where the bull was tied, and the robbers untied and took it. Before leaving, the assailants fired several shots toward Arcadio and the house. Arcadio was unharmed, but his sister Bonifacia, inside the hut, was hit in the right hip; the bullet traversed her intestines, and she died the next day from internal hemorrhage. The assailants were positively identified as the appellant Mariano Patricio and his co-accused Jorge Ortilla. The crime was reported to municipal authorities the next day, but the investigation was delayed due to abnormal and dangerous conditions immediately after liberation, characterized by chaos and disorder where malefactors operated with impunity. A complaint was eventually filed. While awaiting preliminary investigation, Ortilla escaped, so the case proceeded against Patricio alone. The defense presented an alibi.

ISSUE

Whether the defense of alibi can prevail against the prosecution’s evidence of positive and unequivocal identification of the appellant as one of the perpetrators of the robbery with homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The defense of alibi cannot prevail against the positive, credible, and unequivocal identification by prosecution witnesses. Three witnesses—Roman Petate (father, age 62), Arcadio Petate (son, age 23), and Zacarias Talatala (neighbor, age 37)—positively identified the appellant and his co-accused. Roman recognized them due to prior acquaintance and because there was light in the house. Arcadio recognized them by their voices, by the light (as a child was sick), and because he knew them from before, having even accompanied them to the bull. Zacarias, who went to investigate the shots, hid and saw the two men passing close by with the bull; he recognized them despite the moonless night because it was starry and he knew them from before. No improper motive for false accusation was shown. The delay in filing the complaint was satisfactorily explained by the mayor, who testified that investigations were suspended due to legitimate fears for personal safety given the lawless conditions, but the crime was reported immediately, showing prompt and spontaneous identification. The fact that the bull was recovered the next day nearby does not negate the consummation of robbery, which occurred when the animal was taken through force and intimidation; abandonment later does not erase criminal liability. The appellant is liable for the complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Although there is no direct proof as to which of the two assailants fired the fatal shot, it is established that both fired shots simultaneously toward Arcadio and the house. Having conspired to commit the robbery, they are mutually responsible for all acts executed in furtherance thereof, including the homicide, unless it is shown they tried to prevent it, which was not the case. The shooting was a deliberate act of violence/intimidation during the robbery, not a mere accident. The penalty imposed by the trial court is affirmed.