People v. Susano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 22, 1959, between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m., Gregorio Vergara and Victoria Rivera were asleep in their house when several persons broke in. The intruders beat the couple, and one of them fired a gun. Victoria Rivera lost consciousness after being hit, and upon regaining it, found her husband dead and P25 in cash and jewelry valued at P440 missing. Gregorio Vergara sustained severe injuries, particularly in the occipital and temporal regions, causing death due to intracranial and traumatic hemorrhage. Victoria Rivera suffered a contusion requiring five to seven days of medical treatment. Procedural History: An information for robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries was filed on June 5, 1959, against Placido Susano and two unidentified individuals. Susano was apprehended on April 16, 1960. After pleading not guilty, the Court of First Instance of Rizal convicted him and sentenced him to the extreme penalty, to indemnify the heirs of Gregorio Vergara in the sum of P6,000, and to pay costs. The Appeal: Defendant Placido Susano appealed the decision, primarily questioning his identity as one of the perpetrators. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of Victoria Rivera and Antonio Zuñiga, who identified Susano. Susano, in his defense, interposed an alibi, claiming he eloped with Mercedes Marcos from May 20 to May 27, 1959, and stayed in Santa Maria, Bulacan, before moving to Quezon Province where he was arrested.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant Placido Susano for the crime of robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the alibi presented by the accused-appellant is sufficient to overcome the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries, with the modification that the penalty of death be commuted to life imprisonment due to the lack of the requisite number of votes for the imposition of the extreme penalty. The decision of the lower court, in all other respects, was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt and the sufficiency of evidence: The Court found that the guilt of the accused-appellant, Placido Susano, for the crime of robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries was proven beyond reasonable doubt. This conclusion was based on the positive testimonies of Victoria Rivera and Antonio Zuñiga, who identified Susano as one of the malefactors. Victoria Rivera testified that Susano was the one who hit her husband with a gun and subsequently fired it, causing her to lose consciousness. She recognized Susano due to the presence of a lighted gas lamp and moonlight, and because she knew him since childhood as a neighbor. Antonio Zuñiga corroborated this by stating that Susano, whom he also knew since childhood, pointed a gun at him as he approached the victims' house after hearing a gunshot. The ransacked state of the victims' 'aparador' further supported the commission of robbery. The Court found the testimonies of Victoria Rivera and Antonio Zuñiga to be credible and sufficient to establish Susano's presence and participation in the crime. On the issue of alibi: The Court rejected the alibi presented by the accused-appellant, Placido Susano. Susano claimed he eloped with Mercedes Marcos from May 20 to May 27, 1959, and stayed in Santa Maria, Bulacan, before moving to Quezon Province. However, the Court found this alibi to be unconvincing, especially in light of the testimony of Bismarco Tuazon, a Constabulary member and resident of Mercedes Marcos' barrio, who testified that she never left the barrio during May 1959. Furthermore, Susano's corroborating witnesses, namely Mercedes Marcos (whom he married after the incident), his mother-in-law, and Ramon Mendoza (who was related to Susano and initially denied the relationship), were deemed to have a clear interest in the fate of the accused. The Court held that the positive identification by Victoria Rivera and Antonio Zuñiga, who had no apparent motive to falsely implicate Susano, was more credible and sufficient to overcome the weak and self-serving alibi.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery with homicide is committed when a homicide occurs during the commission of robbery. The intent to rob must precede the killing. If the homicide precedes the robbery, or is not connected with the robbery, then there is no robbery with homicide, but separate crimes of homicide and robbery. In this case, the Court found that the killing of Gregorio Vergara occurred during the commission of robbery, thus convicting the appellant of robbery with homicide.