People v. Pecato
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 1, 1971, at approximately 9:00 PM, in Lahi, Gigaquit, Surigao del Norte, Felix Larong (70 years old), his wife Luciana Larong (85 years old), and their daughter Uldarica Larong (31 years old) were in their small house preparing to sleep. Four armed men called from outside, and upon Felix Larong opening the door, they entered. Using flashlights, they ordered the occupants to lie face down and demanded money from Felix Larong. When Felix Larong stated he had no money, one of the intruders, Arturo Pecato, shot him while he was lying face down. Felix Larong died from the shotgun wounds. The intruders then demanded money from Uldarica Larong, who gave them P350.00 after being manhandled and hit with a gun butt. The intruders left, but returned later. The incident was reported the next morning, and the Larong women identified Arturo Pecato, Felix Pecato, Victoriano Leyros, and Ereneo Peruda as the perpetrators. Procedural History: An Information was filed on February 16, 1972, charging Arturo Pecato, Felix Pecato, Victoriano Leyros, and Ereneo Peruda with robbery with homicide. Arturo Pecato died during the trial. Victoriano Leyros remained at large. Felix Pecato and Ereneo Peruda pleaded not guilty. The Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte, Branch II, found Felix Pecato and Ereneo Peruda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing them to death, to indemnify the heirs of Felix Larong in the sum of P12,000.00, and to pay costs. The home-made shotgun was ordered forfeited. The case against Victoriano Leyros was archived. The Petition: The decision of the trial court was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The accused-appellants, Felix Pecato and Ereneo Peruda, interposed alibi as their defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the alibi of the accused-appellants prevails over the positive identification by the victims. Whether the crime committed is robbery with homicide. Whether the aggravating circumstances alleged in the Information and found by the trial court were correctly appreciated. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Felix Pecato and Ereneo Peruda for robbery with homicide, with modifications to the penalty and indemnity. The death penalty imposed by the trial court was commuted to reclusion perpetua pursuant to the 1987 Constitution. The indemnity to the heirs of Felix Larong was increased to P30,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of alibi versus positive identification: The Court held that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses, especially when the witnesses are victims of the crime and have no reason to falsely accuse the perpetrators. The Larong women positively identified the appellants, and their testimonies were consistent from the police investigation through the trial. The Court noted that the victims and the appellants were relatives, making a false imputation of a capital offense less likely. Furthermore, the alibi of Felix Pecato was corroborated only by his mother, whose testimony is considered tainted with bias. The alibi of Ereneo Peruda was supported by guests who attended a birthday feast, but the Court found it physically impossible for the appellants to be at their respective homes given their proximity to the crime scene. The Court reiterated the rule that alibi is a weak defense, easily fabricated, and cannot overcome positive identification, particularly when the accused are not physically impossible to be at the scene of the crime. On the crime committed: The Court affirmed that the crime committed was robbery with homicide, as defined and penalized under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The victim, Felix Larong, was shot and killed during the commission of the robbery. The Court reiterated its established jurisprudence that as long as homicide results during or because of the robbery, even if by accident, the crime of robbery with homicide is committed. All principals in the robbery are guilty of robbery with homicide unless they endeavored to prevent the killing. The evidence showed that the co-accused stood by and did nothing when Felix Larong was shot, thus failing to prevent the homicide. On the aggravating circumstances: The Court found the aggravating circumstances of treachery, in band, abuse of superior strength, and nighttime to be present. Treachery was evident as Felix Larong was shot while lying face down, unable to defend himself. The crime was committed by four armed men (in band), who were younger and stronger than the elderly victim (abuse of superior strength), and they specifically chose the nighttime to commit the crime, even using flashlights to illuminate the interior of the house. The Court also appreciated the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, as the crime was committed inside the victims' house, which could have been avoided. However, the Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank is not applicable to robbery with homicide, as it is primarily a crime against property, not persons. On the penalty: The crime of robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Given the presence of multiple aggravating circumstances (treachery, in band, abuse of superior strength, nighttime, and dwelling) and no mitigating circumstances, the penalty of death was correctly imposed by the trial court. However, the Court noted that pursuant to Section 19(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, the death penalty had been abolished. Therefore, the penalty imposable on the accused-appellants was commuted to reclusion perpetua. The Court also clarified that Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code, concerning the use of unlicensed firearms in robbery by a band, is not applicable to this case, which falls under Article 294.
Main Doctrine
Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by prosecution witnesses, especially when the accused reside near the scene of the crime and there is no physical impossibility for them to be present. The crime of robbery with homicide is a special complex crime, and all principals are guilty thereof even if they did not directly participate in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent it. The death penalty, while imposable for robbery with homicide attended by aggravating circumstances, is commuted to reclusion perpetua by virtue of the 1987 Constitution.