People vs. De La Cruz

A conviction for robbery with homicide may be sustained on the positive identification of the accused by credible eyewitnesses, and an alibi fails when the accused cannot demonstrate physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. The proper penalty for robbery with homicide, absent the death penalty, is reclusion perpetua, not life imprisonment.

On October 1, 1988, a passenger jeepney plying the Punta-Quiapo route in Manila was held up by five armed men who pretended to be passengers. During the robbery, the assailants divested passengers of their valuables and fatally stabbed one of them, Venancio Estacio. The accused, Rolando de la Cruz y Gomez, was subsequently identified and charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

• Nature of the Crime: On October 1, 1988, five armed men, including the appellant, boarded a passenger jeepney pretending to be passengers. Once the jeepney was in motion, they announced a hold-up, with one pointing a gun at the driver's head and others pointing knives at the passengers.
• The Robbery and Homicide: The assailants forcibly took valuables from the passengers. During the robbery, passenger Venancio Estacio was stabbed twice in the chest, resulting in his death.
• Identification of the Appellant: Two prosecution witnesses, Abel Requejo (a passenger) and Catalina Dionisio (the driver's wife), positively identified the appellant in open court as one of the five perpetrators who robbed the passengers.
• Appellant's Defense: The appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at his home, located approximately sixty meters from the crime scene, from 6:30 PM on the date of the incident until the following morning.
• Trial Court Findings: The trial court gave full faith and credit to the prosecution witnesses, rejected the appellant's alibi as weak and uncorroborated (noting his mother's testimony as a "loyalty vote"), and found conspiracy among the perpetrators.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Petitioner (accused-appellant) argued that the prosecution's evidence was weak, specifically challenging the testimony of the jeepney driver, Sotero Dionisio, who could not specify the appellant's exact role, and the testimony of Abel Requejo, suggesting Requejo did not clearly see the appellant's face.
• Strength of Alibi: Implicitly, the petitioner maintained that his alibi should have been given more weight, as he was not at the scene of the crime.

• Positive Identification: Respondent (People) countered that the positive and categorical identification of the appellant by two eyewitnesses prevailed over the defense of alibi.
• Conspiracy: Respondent argued that the concerted actions of the appellant and his companions—boarding together, acting in assigned roles during the hold-up, and alighting together—established conspiracy, making all liable for the homicide committed on the occasion of the robbery.

• Credibility and Identification: Whether the positive identification of the appellant by prosecution witnesses was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Defense of Alibi: Whether the appellant's defense of alibi should overturn his conviction.
• Proper Penalty and Civil Liability: Whether the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and properly adjudicated the appellant's civil liability.

• Credibility and Identification: The conviction was sustained. The positive identification of the appellant by two eyewitnesses (Requejo and Catalina Dionisio) was clear, convincing, and entitled to great weight. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility was upheld.
• Defense of Alibi: The alibi was rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The appellant's house was only sixty meters away, failing the test of physical impossibility.
• Proper Penalty and Civil Liability: The penalty was modified. The trial court erred in imposing "life imprisonment." The correct penalty for robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. With two generic aggravating circumstances (band and craft) and no mitigating circumstances, the death penalty would have been imposable but for the constitutional prohibition; thus, reclusion perpetua was proper. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00, and the appellant was ordered to return the stolen watch or its value (P800.00) and cash (P200.00) to victim Abel Requejo.

• Conspiracy in Robbery with Homicide — Conspiracy may be inferred from the concerted actions of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. When conspiracy is established, all conspirators are liable as principals for the robbery and the homicide committed on the occasion thereof, unless they attempted to prevent the killing.
• Positive Identification vs. Alibi — The positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses prevails over the defense of alibi. For alibi to be credible, the accused must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
• Distinction between Reclusion Perpetua and Life Imprisonment — Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are not synonymous. Reclusion perpetua is a penalty defined by the Revised Penal Code with specific accessory penalties and a definite duration, while life imprisonment is a generic penalty. The proper statutory penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua, not life imprisonment.

• "It is clear that the said witness was 'facing' the appellant during the hold-up. The answer to the last question reproduced above confirms the fact that indeed, the witness was facing the appellant and therefore, had an unobstructed view of his face." — This passage underscores the Court's reasoning for crediting the eyewitness identification.
• "It is extremely exasperating to find some judges still unable to heed Our pronouncement on this matter." — This reflects the Court's continued emphasis on the distinction between reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment.

• People vs. Muñoz, 170 SCRA 107 (1989) — Applied to rule that where the imposable penalty is death but its imposition is prohibited by the 1987 Constitution, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.
• People vs. Verzo, 65 SCRA 324 (1975) and related cases — Cited for the doctrine that the trial court's findings on witness credibility are entitled to the highest respect on appeal.
• People vs. Garillo, 84 SCRA 537 (1978) — Cited for the rule that all participants in a robbery are liable for homicide committed on the occasion thereof unless they tried to prevent the killing.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes robbery with homicide, prescribing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
• Article 14(6) & (14), Revised Penal Code — Define the generic aggravating circumstances of band (more than three armed malefactors) and craft (fraud or trickery).
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides rules for application of indivisible penalties; when aggravating circumstances are present, the greater penalty (death) shall be applied.
• Section 19(1), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.
• Article 100, Revised Penal Code — Establishes that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concurred.

N/A. The decision was unanimous.