People v. Recolizado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Maria Castañeda and her husband Alejandro Umblas were sleeping in their house when intruders entered. Maria was awakened by footsteps and saw Alberto Calaycay and Vicente Recolizado on the stairs, their faces covered with handkerchiefs. Recolizado struck Maria, causing her to fall, and then hacked her twice on the back. Meanwhile, Calaycay entered the room where Alejandro was. Maria heard her husband screaming. Recolizado attempted to strike Maria again, but she used a pillow as a shield, causing P500.00 in cash to fall from it, which Recolizado then took. The intruders extinguished the oil lamp before entering the room. Maria identified Recolizado as he was a barriomate and frequented her store. The intruders destroyed three doors to gain entry. As a result of the assault, Alejandro Umblas died. Procedural History: Vicente Recolizado, along with three others, was charged with robbery in band with homicide and physical injuries before the Court of First Instance of Cagayan. Valentin Aurelio and Alberto Calaycay pleaded guilty, and the case against Ciriaco Tabarrejo was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Recolizado was found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity and costs. A subsequent order deleted the portion of the decision regarding preventive imprisonment credit. The Appeal: Vicente Recolizado appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance. His primary defense was alibi, claiming he did not leave his house on the night of the incident because his wife had an abortion. He also alleged he was forced at gunpoint to participate and that his signed statement was false, given without food for three days. He argued Maria Castañeda might have identified him due to a debt she owed him. The defense presented two witnesses to corroborate the alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the appellant for the crime of robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the crime committed was robbery in band.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding the appellant guilty of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The Court ruled that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the appellant's participation in the crime. The Court also held that the crime committed was robbery with homicide, not necessarily robbery in band, as the prosecution failed to prove that the malefactors were four or more armed persons, but the elements of robbery and homicide were sufficiently established.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the guilt of the appellant for the crime of robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Maria Castañeda positively identified the appellant as one of the perpetrators, describing his actions during the commission of the crime, including boxing her and hacking her. Her identification was credible because Recolizado was a barriomate and a regular customer at her store. Furthermore, Emilio Daay corroborated Maria's testimony by stating he saw the appellant coming out of the victim's house when he heard screams. The Court also noted that the appellant's own affidavit, though he claimed it was made under duress, admitted his presence at the scene and was attested to have been read and explained to him by a judge, contradicting his alibi. The defense of alibi, supported by the appellant's mother and another witness, was not given credence by the trial court due to inconsistencies and the inherent weakness of testimony from a close relative. On Whether the crime committed was robbery in band: The Court held that the evidence was not clear that the malefactors were four armed persons or more, which is required to sustain the charge of robbery in band. While the prosecution witnesses identified two malefactors, their insinuation that others might have been present due to the darkness was insufficient to prove the element of 'band'. However, the Court concluded that the crime committed was robbery with homicide, aggravated by the fact that it was committed in the dwelling of the victims, making the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the lower court adequate and in accordance with Article 294, Paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court also affirmed the deletion of the portion of the decision crediting the appellant with preventive imprisonment, as Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code does not grant this privilege to those convicted of robbery.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide, holding that the prosecution sufficiently proved the commission of the crime and the appellant's participation therein. The Court reiterated that the crime of robbery with homicide is consummated when, by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, a homicide occurs, and that the penalty of reclusion perpetua is appropriate even if the robbery was not committed by a band, provided the elements of robbery and homicide are present. Furthermore, the Court clarified that individuals convicted of robbery are not entitled to the privilege of having one-half of their preventive imprisonment credited to them.