People of the Philippines vs. Sumina Gamo and Lumunsog Gabasan

Robbery with homicide is established when personal property is taken from another by violence or intimidation with intent to gain and homicide is committed on the occasion or by reason thereof; conspiracy makes all principals equally liable for the special complex crime even if they did not inflict the fatal wound, unless they endeavored to prevent the homicide. Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are distinct penalties, and the phrase "or life imprisonment" must be deleted where the Revised Penal Code prescribes reclusion perpetua.

Sumina Gamo and Lumonsog Gabasan were familiar to the Gonzales family in Sitio San Pedro, Barangay Lubusan, Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur: Gabasan used to sell copra to them and buy on credit from Epifania Gonzales's store, while Pablito Nang was known in the community as "bugoy." The Gonzales household consisted of Nicanor Gonzales, his wife Epifania, and their children, including Elizabeth. The offense charged was robbery with homicide under Articles 293 and 294 of the Revised Penal Code, a special complex crime classified primarily as an offense against property. Pablito Nang remained at large, while Gamo and Gabasan were apprehended and tried.

On May 16, 1990, around 7:00 p.m., farmer Nicanor Gonzales, his wife Epifania, and six of their eleven children—Monina, Celso, Elizabeth, Basilio, Ambrosio, and Ronnie—were in their house at Sitio San Pedro, Lubosan, Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur. Feeling the urge to relieve himself before going to bed, Nicanor went downstairs to the comfort room adjacent to the house. Because it was already dark, Epifania placed a lighted gas lamp on the windowsill overlooking the toilet. After a while, Nicanor called Elizabeth to take her turn in using the toilet. Elizabeth went downstairs and walked toward the toilet.

To her surprise, Elizabeth saw her father being attacked by three masked men. As Nicanor struggled with the assailants, their T-shirt masks dropped, enabling Elizabeth to recognize them with the aid of the light from the gas lamp. She recognized the two who held her father's hands as Sumiba Gamo and Lumonsog Gabasan, and the third who stabbed her father as Pablito Nang. She positively identified the three because she was familiar with their faces since they used to pass by their place. After stabbing Nicanor, the three rushed inside the house. Elizabeth followed but was hit on the head by Gabasan, who then stood as lookout beside the stairs. She managed to reach the upper floor, where she saw her mother Epifania struggling against Pablito Nang and Sumiba Gamo.

Earlier, Epifania had heard the commotion coming from the direction of the comfort room and decided to investigate. Before she could step out of the door, two masked men grabbed her by the hands and poked knives at her. In the ensuing scuffle, she pried loose their masks and, aided by the light from the gas lamp, recognized the two who gripped her hands as Pablito Nang and Sumiba Gamo, both armed with hunting knives. She also saw Lumonsog Gabasan standing by the stairs. Gabasan demanded money from Epifania, who replied that they had no money and pleaded for her life. The two men warned her to keep quiet. As she continued to struggle, she sustained wounds on her left wrist and neck. While Pablito Nang restrained her, Sumiba Gamo searched their trunk, took the money in it, and told Nang about it. As the three intruders fled, one of them shouted that they would come back.

After the three had left, Epifania shouted for help, crying out, "Tabang mo kay gitulis me!" When no immediate response came, she hurried downstairs. As she left the house, she saw her husband Nicanor seriously wounded beside the mango tree. When she asked him to identify his assailants, he named Pablito Nang and Sumiba Gamo and could make no more utterance as he was choking in his own blood. Neighbors arrived and placed the wounded Nicanor on a bench which they carried toward the road to bring him to a doctor, but he expired after only a few minutes. When Epifania inspected the family trunk that had been ransacked, she found that money consisting of paper bills and coins totaling some P500.00 had been taken.

The following day, Patrolman Alfren Humpa and Pfc. Ansaling Lingating conducted an investigation and drew a sketch of the crime scene, indicating the window of the Gonzales house overlooking the toilet, the one-meter distance of the toilet from the house, the four-meter distance of the toilet from the mango tree where bloodstains were found, and the distance of the house from the road where the victim died. The post mortem examination prepared by Rural Sanitation Inspector George Bayamban revealed that Nicanor sustained one stab wound at the middle of the chest measuring 1 3/4 inches in length, 1 inch wide, and 4 inches deep, and one stab wound at the middle of his back measuring 1 3/4 inches in length, 1/2 inch wide, and 4 inches deep. Hemorrhage due to stab wounds at the middle back and chest was the cause of death.

The defense gave a different version. Gamo and Gabasan claimed that in the morning of May 16, 1990, they were hired by Lamberto Lingating Lusay to make copra at Guili-an, Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur. They started after breakfast at about 7:00 a.m. and finished at about 4:00 p.m., after which they went to Gabasan's house to rest. While there, Ernie Gandamon arrived and summoned Temie Gabasan, Lumonsog's brother, to discuss the impending marriage between Temie and Ernie's cousin Myrna. Lumonsog's father agreed to go to Myrna's house in Sitio Guili-an, Poblacion, Lapuyan, accompanied by Gamo, Gabasan, Dugang, Temie, and Mamerto Masulog. The group brought two chickens to symbolize the plighted troth. Upon arrival, the appellants cooked and prepared the chickens for supper, after which a wedding covenant was forged between the father of the prospective groom and Mamerto Masulog, the guardian of the bride-to-be. While having dinner, they heard gunshots from the neighboring barangay, prompting Lumonsog's father and younger brother to go home at once. Gamo, Gabasan, and Temie stayed behind and slept at Ernie's house that evening. Upon waking at 7:00 a.m., they returned to their place of work. The defense presented Ernie Gandamon, Mamerto Masulog, and Pendatun Bandatun to corroborate the alibi.

The trial court gave full credence to the testimonies of Epifania and Elizabeth and rejected the defense of denial and alibi.

• Material Inconsistencies and Unsupported Findings: Accused-appellants argued that the trial court ignored material inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies and made findings of fact unsupported by the records and evidence, thereby prejudicing their constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. They cited specific errors: Elizabeth was allegedly hit on the head with a gun, but she testified only that she was hit on the head without mentioning a gun; Pablito Nang was allegedly identified by Epifania because he removed his mask while ransacking the trunk, but Epifania said she removed the masks of the culprits while struggling with them; Epifania was allegedly grabbed by two masked men and a third masked person followed and entered the house and ransacked the trunk, but her testimony stated that only two persons entered the house, Gamo opened the trunk, and Gabasan waited by the stairs; and the trial court allegedly said the wife did not identify Gabasan and the daughter did not identify Gamo because they did not know them, but both witnesses categorically identified all three accused.
• Credibility of Wife and Daughter: They argued the trial court erred in giving credence and full weight to the testimony of the wife and daughter of the deceased victim.
• Affidavit-Testimony Contradictions: They argued the prosecution witnesses should be discredited because of contradictions between their affidavits and open-court testimonies: Epifania's affidavit did not mention being stabbed and stated that Gamo pointed a knife while Nang ransacked the trunk, whereas in court she testified that Nang stabbed her and Gamo opened the trunk and that she recognized them after snatching their masks; Elizabeth's affidavit stated that Gabasan whipped her with a pistol, but in court she made no mention of the gun and alleged only that she was whipped by Gabasan.
• Child Witness: They assailed the trial court's reliance on the testimony of 11-year-old Elizabeth because of her tender age and alleged low level of understanding, intelligence, and common sense.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: They argued the trial court erred in holding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.
• Denial and Alibi: They maintained their innocence and interposed denial and alibi, claiming they were at Guili-an making copra and later at Ernie Gandamon's house for a wedding covenant, corroborated by Ernie Gandamon, Mamerto Masulog, and Pendatun Bandatun.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of Epifania and Elizabeth Gonzales despite alleged material inconsistencies and unsupported factual findings.
• Affidavit-Testimony Discrepancies: Whether inconsistencies between the prosecution witnesses' ex parte affidavits and their open-court testimonies discredited their testimonies.
• Child Witness Competence: Whether the testimony of 11-year-old Elizabeth was credible despite her tender age and alleged low level of understanding, intelligence, and common sense.
• Alibi and Denial: Whether the defense of denial and alibi should prevail over the prosecution eyewitnesses' positive identification.
• Guilt for Robbery with Homicide: Whether accused-appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed should be reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No. The trial court's credibility assessment is binding absent overlooked material facts; the alleged errors were not grave enough to reverse, and eyewitnesses positively identified appellants.
• Affidavit-Testimony Discrepancies: No. Ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete; inconsistencies on minor details do not discredit witnesses, and open-court testimonies are superior.
• Child Witness Competence: No. A child regardless of age may be a competent witness if able to perceive, recollect, communicate, and relate truthfully; the trial court's assessment is respected.
• Alibi and Denial: No. Alibi is the weakest defense and cannot prevail over positive identification absent proof of physical impossibility; the distance was negotiable in 20 minutes.
• Guilt for Robbery with Homicide: Yes. All elements were established, and conspiracy made all principals equally liable for the special complex crime.
• Proper Penalty: Reclusion perpetua only. Article 294(1) prescribes reclusion perpetua to death; absent mitigating or aggravating circumstances, reclusion perpetua is proper, and the phrase "or life imprisonment" must be deleted.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The rule is that findings of the trial court on witness credibility are not disturbed on appeal unless the record shows a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that was overlooked or whose significance was misapprehended or misinterpreted. The trial court is in a better position to decide the question because it heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. Although the trial court may have committed some errors in its factual findings, these lapses were not so grave as to reverse the verdict; the records show that accused-appellants were categorically and positively identified by eyewitnesses as the perpetrators. Relationship per se does not affect credibility, and it would be unnatural for the relatives of the victim to impute the crime to innocent persons. The delay in revealing the identities of the accused may be attributed to trauma, confusion, and grief.
• Affidavit-Testimony Discrepancies: No serious incongruence exists between the eyewitnesses' sworn declarations and their testimonies. What is material is that their testimonies agree on the essential fact that the three accused were present and participated in the commission of the crime. Ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete; inconsistencies between declarations in sworn statements and those in court do not necessarily discredit the affiants. Testimonies given during trial are more exact and elaborate than sworn statements, and affidavits are not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in mind because the administering officer generally prepares them. The alleged inconsistencies were minor and did not affect credibility; they showed only that the affidavits were incomplete on details that did not detract from the overall veracity of the testimonies. Minor inconsistencies serve to strengthen credibility as badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood. The affidavits and testimonies concurred on all material points, establishing the presence of accused-appellants at the scene and the manner of execution.
• Child Witness Competence: Any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive and, perceiving, can make known his perception to others, and if he is capable of relating truthfully the facts for which he is examined. The requirements of a child's competence are capacity of observation, capacity of recollection, and capacity of communication. Whether a child is of sufficient intelligence under these requirements is addressed to the sound judgment of the trial court. No cogent reason existed to disturb the trial court's assessment of Elizabeth's credibility.
• Alibi and Denial: Alibi is one of the weakest defenses an accused can invoke. Courts look upon it with caution, if not suspicion, because it is inherently unreliable and easy to fabricate. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses who have no motive to testify falsely. For alibi to be believed, credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility for the accused to be at the scene of the crime is indispensable; the accused must show that he was at such other place for such a period of time that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its commission. No such physical impossibility was adduced. Barangay Guili-an, where Gamo and Gabasan claimed to be, is not far from Sitio San Pedro, Barangay Lubosan, where the crime was committed; defense witness Ernie Gandamon testified that the distance could be negotiated in 20 minutes by riding a carabao or by hiking. The alibi also could not prevail against the positive identification by Epifania and Elizabeth, who were not shown to harbor any ill motive.
• Guilt for Robbery with Homicide: Robbery with homicide is primarily classified as an offense against property, not against persons. The prosecution had to establish: (a) taking of personal property with use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide was committed. All elements were adequately established. The prosecution showed through eyewitness testimony that accused-appellants used violence and intimidation against the Gonzales family to carry out their intention to rob; they stabbed Nicanor to death to facilitate the robbery and attacked Epifania and 11-year-old Elizabeth, causing injuries; and they took P500.00 from the family trunk. Asportation being proved, animus lucrandi is presumed. In robbery with homicide, the homicide may precede or follow the robbery; what is essential is a nexus, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing. Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery are guilty as principals of the special complex crime even if they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent it. That exception did not apply. By their concerted action, accused-appellants and Pablito Nang conspired to rob the Gonzales family, and on that occasion killed Nicanor to facilitate their criminal intent. It was immaterial that accused-appellants merely held Nicanor's arms while Pablito Nang stabbed him; because of conspiracy, all perpetrators bore equal responsibility.
• Proper Penalty: The special complex crime of robbery with homicide carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The proper imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua in the absence of proven mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The trial court erroneously imposed "reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment." Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are not synonymous; they are distinct in nature, duration, and accessory penalties. The Revised Penal Code does not prescribe life imprisonment for any felony; that penalty is imposed for serious offenses penalized by special law. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least 30 years, after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon, and carries accessory penalties such as perpetual special disqualification. Life imprisonment does not carry any accessory penalty and does not appear to have any definite extent or duration. The phrase "or life imprisonment" was therefore deleted.

• Credibility of witnesses; appellate deference — Findings of the trial court on witness credibility are binding on appeal absent a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that was overlooked or whose significance was misapprehended or misinterpreted. The trial court is in a better position because it heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. Applied to uphold the eyewitness identifications despite alleged errors in the trial court's factual findings.
• Affidavit-testimony inconsistencies — Ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete; inconsistencies between sworn statements and open-court testimonies do not necessarily discredit the affiants. Trial testimonies are generally superior to affidavits, which are often prepared by the administering officer and are not complete reproductions of the declarant's knowledge. Minor inconsistencies may even strengthen credibility as badges of truth. Applied to reject the attack on Epifania and Elizabeth.
• Child witness competence — Any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive and, perceiving, can make known his perception to others, and if he is capable of relating truthfully the facts for which he is examined. The requirements are capacity of observation, capacity of recollection, and capacity of communication. The determination is addressed to the sound judgment of the trial court. Applied to uphold Elizabeth's testimony.
• Alibi — Alibi is one of the weakest defenses and is viewed with caution, if not suspicion, because it is inherently unreliable and easy to fabricate. It cannot prevail over positive identification by prosecution witnesses with no motive to testify falsely. For alibi to be believed, credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime is indispensable. Applied to reject the defense because Guili-an was only about 20 minutes away from the crime scene.
• Relationship and delay in reporting — Relationship per se does not affect the credibility of witnesses; it would be unnatural for the relatives of a victim to impute the crime to innocent persons. Delay in revealing the offender's identity may be attributable to trauma, confusion, and grief. Applied to uphold the testimonies of the victim's wife and daughter.
• Robbery with homicide elements — The elements are: (a) taking of personal property with use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide was committed. Applied to affirm the conviction.
• Conspiracy in robbery with homicide — Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery are guilty as principals of the special complex crime even if they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent it. Applied to hold appellants equally liable although Pablito Nang inflicted the fatal stab wounds.
• Reclusion perpetua vs. life imprisonment — Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are distinct in nature, duration, and accessory penalties. The Revised Penal Code does not prescribe life imprisonment for any felony; that penalty is imposed for serious offenses penalized by special law. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least 30 years, after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon, and carries accessory penalties such as perpetual special disqualification. Life imprisonment does not carry any accessory penalty and has no definite extent or duration. Applied to delete the phrase "or life imprisonment."

• "The crime of robbery with homicide is primarily classified as an offense against property and not against persons. It is therefore incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property thus taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed." — This passage states the elements of robbery with homicide and frames the prosecution's burden in the case.
• "In the crime of robbery with homicide, the homicide may precede robbery or may occur after robbery. What is essential is that there is a nexus, an intimate connection between robbery and the killing whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time." — This passage defines the required nexus between the robbery and the killing in the special complex crime.
• "Likewise, the rule is well-established that whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide." — This passage explains why appellants were equally liable despite Pablito Nang being the one who stabbed the victim.
• "Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least (30) years, after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon. It also carries with it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual special disqualification, etc. It is not the same as "life imprisonment" which, for one thing, does not carry with it any accessory penalty, and for another, does not appear to have any definite extent or duration." — This passage is the canonical distinction between reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment and supports the deletion of the phrase "or life imprisonment."

• People vs. Dismuke, G.R. No. 108453, July 11, 1994, 234 SCRA 51, 58 — Cited for the rule that appellate courts will not interfere with the trial court's credibility findings unless the record shows an overlooked or misapprehended fact of weight and influence.
• People vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 92369, August 10, 1994, 235 SCRA 202, 213-214 — Cited for the rule that ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete and that trial testimonies are more exact and elaborate than sworn statements.
• People vs. Reyes, 316 Phil. 1, 12 (1995) — Cited for the rule that differences between a witness's sworn statement and testimony are not unknown and that extrajudicial statements are often infirm.
• People vs. Mendoza, 324 Phil. 222, 238 (1996) — Cited for the rule that any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive, make known his perception, and relate truthfully the facts.
• People vs. Manzano, 318 Phil. 279, 292 (1995) — Cited for the rule that alibi is one of the weakest defenses an accused can invoke.
• People vs. Esquilona, 318 Phil. 164, 170 (1995) — Cited for the rule that alibi is inherently unreliable and easy to fabricate.
• People vs. Pacapac, 318 Phil. 91, 110 (1995) — Cited for the rule that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification and that physical impossibility must be proved.
• People vs. Sanchez, G.R. Nos. 98402-04, November 16, 1995, 250 SCRA 14 — Cited for the requirement of credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility for alibi.
• People vs. Jose, G.R. No. 107106, November 24, 1995, 250 SCRA 319 — Cited for the rule that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by witnesses with no motive to testify falsely.
• People vs. Estrellanes, Jr., G.R. No. 111003, December 15, 1994, 239 SCRA 235 — Cited for the rule that relationship per se does not affect the credibility of witnesses.
• People vs. Gamboa, G.R. No. 91374, February 25, 1991, 194 SCRA 372 — Cited for the rule that delay in revealing the offender's identity may be attributable to trauma, confusion, and grief.
• People vs. Esparraguerra, 318 Phil. 250, 266 (1995) — Cited for the rule that asportation proves animus lucrandi by presumption.
• People vs. Hernandez, 46 Phil. 48, 49 (1924) — Cited for the rule that homicide may precede or follow robbery, provided there is a nexus between the robbery and the killing.
• People vs. Angeles, 315 Phil. 23 (1995); People vs. Calegan, G.R. No. 93846, June 30, 1994, 233 SCRA 537; People vs. Pugal, G.R. No. 90637, October 29, 1992, 215 SCRA 247 — Cited for the rule that all principals in the robbery are guilty of robbery with homicide even if they did not take part in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent it.
• People vs. Piandiong, G.R. No. 118140, February 19, 1997, 268 SCRA 555, 571 — Cited for the rule that conspiracy makes all perpetrators equally responsible.
• People vs. Mobe, 81 Phil. 58 (1948); People vs. Antonio Magana, G.R. No. 105673, July 26, 1996, 259 SCRA 380 — Cited for the distinction between reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment.
• People vs. Gavina, G.R. No. 118076, November 20, 1996, 264 SCRA 450, 455 — Cited for the elements of robbery with homicide.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines robbery with homicide and prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. The Court applied it to affirm the conviction and impose reclusion perpetua, absent mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
• Article 293, Revised Penal Code — Cited in the information as one of the provisions violated by the robbery with homicide charge. The Court's analysis focused on Article 294(1).
• Article 63(2), Revised Penal Code — Cited in connection with the imposition of reclusion perpetua in the absence of proven mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Narvasa, C.J., Kapunan and Purisima, JJ., concur.