People v. Hamtig
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Hilaria Vda. de Hondolero and her son, Mastito, were asleep in their house. At approximately 3:00 AM, four armed individuals, identified as Francisco Hamtig (son-in-law of Hilaria), Eutiquio Hamtig, Mariano alias Alejandro Osorio, and Francisco Gaston, broke into their house. Francisco Hamtig shot Hilaria upon recognizing her, inflicting fatal wounds. Mastito was also shot by the intruders, sustaining injuries that required medical attention. The intruders stole P1,400.00 from a trunk. Hilaria died on June 24, 1966, due to her wounds. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Leyte found Francisco Hamtig, Eutiquio Hamtig, and Mariano alias Alejandro Osorio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and robbery with frustrated homicide. They were sentenced to death for robbery with homicide and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. The trial court deemed it unnecessary to impose a penalty for the second offense due to the death penalty for the first. The Petition: The defendants-appellants, through their counsel de officio, appealed the decision, primarily assailing the trial court's appreciation of evidence, particularly the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, and arguing for the acceptance of their defense of alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and in finding Francisco Hamtig as the one who shot his mother-in-law. Whether the trial court erred in ignoring the defense of alibi interposed by Eutiquio Hamtig and Mariano alias Alejandro Osorio. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court for the second offense of robbery with frustrated homicide was correctly omitted.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision in so far as it sentenced the three defendants to suffer the penalty of death for the crime of robbery with homicide and increased the indemnity to P12,000.00. The Court modified the decision by imposing separate penalties for the second offense of robbery with frustrated homicide, sentencing each defendant to an indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of identification and the shooting of Hilaria Vda. de Hondolero: The Court found the prosecution's evidence to be clear and positive. Mastito Hondolero, the victim's son and brother-in-law of Francisco Hamtig, positively identified Francisco as one of the intruders and the one who shot his mother. Hilaria herself recognized Francisco and exclaimed his name before being shot. Furthermore, Gonzalo Dandan, another son-in-law, positively identified the accused as they were leaving the house. Francisco's claim of going to the house to help was belied by his actions and inaction. The Court also dismissed the contention that Francisco could not have committed the crime due to lack of firearm, stating that his admission of not having a license implied the use of an unlicensed firearm. On the defense of alibi: The Court found the defense of alibi interposed by Eutiquio Hamtig and Mariano alias Alejandro Osorio to be unmeritorious. The distance between their claimed location and the scene of the crime did not render their presence at the crime scene physically impossible. Moreover, the trial judge, who had the advantage of observing the witnesses' demeanor, gave full credit to the prosecution's witnesses. The alibi was supported only by the defendants themselves and Manuelita Cabelin, whose testimony regarding Mariano spitting blood was deemed not to ring true. The Court reiterated that alibi is a weak defense, easily concocted, and requires strong corroboration. On the penalty for the second offense: The Court held that the trial court erred in deeming it unnecessary to impose a penalty for the second offense of robbery with frustrated homicide. The Court ruled that separate penalties should be imposed for each crime proven. Since the injuries inflicted upon Mastito Hondolero required twenty to thirty-five days to heal, the crime was robbery in band with physical injuries under Article 294, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period should be imposed in its maximum period due to aggravating circumstances, leading to the indeterminate sentence imposed.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide and robbery with frustrated homicide, increasing the indemnity and imposing separate penalties for each offense, while rejecting the defense of alibi due to its inherent weakness and lack of corroboration.