People v. Torrente
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Salvador Torrente, along with Juan Tañote, Salvador dela Cruz, and Rodrigo Taoc, were charged with robbery with homicide. The crime allegedly occurred on August 22, 1987, in barangay Inalmasinan, Caramoran, Catanduanes. The perpetrators forcibly entered the house and store of Pastor Verano, Sr., stealing P10,000.00. During the commission of the robbery, they also fatally wounded Pastor Verano, Sr. and his son, Pastor Verano, Jr. The offense was aggravated by nighttime, a band, superior strength, dwelling, and the use of an unlicensed firearm. During the incident, Jesus Tapanan, one of the accused, was also killed. Procedural History: Three of the accused, Juan Tañote, Salvador dela Cruz, and Rodrigo Taoc, initially pleaded not guilty but later changed their plea to guilty upon rearraignment. They were subsequently found guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Appellant Salvador Torrente was not apprehended at the time and remained at large. He was eventually arrested in Manila in 1990. After arraignment and trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Virac, Catanduanes, found Torrente guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, holding him jointly and severally liable with his co-accused for the damages awarded. The Petition: Appellant Salvador Torrente is before the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction. He assigns four errors, primarily arguing that the trial court erred in finding him to be one of the perpetrators, in not giving credence to his defense of alibi, in holding that he fled after the commission of the offense, and in not acquitting him due to reasonable doubt. The appeal centers on the credibility of witnesses and the positive identification of the appellant by eyewitnesses Nery Verano and Miguel Solero, despite his claims of alibi and mistaken identity.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant was positively identified as one of the perpetrators of the crime of robbery with homicide. Whether the defense of alibi presented by the appellant is credible and sufficient to overcome the prosecution's evidence. Whether the appellant's departure from Catanduanes and subsequent actions constitute flight, indicative of guilt. Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, including the assessment of penalties and damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding the accused-appellant Salvador Torrente guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. The Court modified the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of the victims.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of positive identification: The Court found that the appellant was positively identified by two eyewitnesses: Mrs. Nery Verano, the wife of one of the victims, and Miguel Solero, a farmer. Mrs. Verano identified the appellant as the man who poked a gun at her as she was going towards the kitchen. Miguel Solero identified the appellant as being beside Rodrigo Taoc when Taoc poked a gun at him at the gate of the Verano residence. The Court gave credence to their testimonies, noting that Mrs. Verano's relationship to the victim did not discredit her but rather lent more credence to her testimony. The Court also dismissed the alleged inconsistency in Mrs. Verano's description of the assailant's hair and build, stating that such variations are minor compared to positive identification based on facial features. Miguel Solero's prior acquaintance with the appellant further strengthened his identification. On the defense of alibi: The Court rejected the appellant's defense of alibi. It reiterated the well-settled rule that alibi cannot prevail over positive testimony of credible prosecution witnesses and their clear identification of the accused. The Court found that the appellant failed to present credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime. His claim of being in the forest gathering rattan with several other persons was deemed insufficient to overcome the positive identification by the eyewitnesses. The Court emphasized that alibi is considered the weakest defense and must be so convincing as to preclude any doubt about the accused's inability to be present at the crime scene. On the issue of flight: The Court considered the appellant's departure from Catanduanes and his prolonged absence until his arrest three years later as a clear indication of guilt. His explanation that he left to attend his father-in-law's burial and subsequently worked in Manila was not found credible. The Court cited the doctrine that an accused's flight and act of hiding until arrest are circumstances highly indicative of guilt, as the wicked flee even when no man pursueth. On the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, penalty and damages: Based on the positive identification by eyewitnesses, the rejection of the defense of alibi, and the indication of guilt from flight, the Court concluded that the appellant was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found no reason to doubt the identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses and found no plain oversight of facts that could affect the result of the case. The Court also noted that a co-accused, Rodrigo Taoc, had executed an affidavit categorically naming the appellant as one of the perpetrators. The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court, noting that the death penalty was proscribed at the time of the offense. The Court modified the award of civil indemnity, increasing the death indemnity for each victim from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, for a total of P100,000.00. The Court clarified the joint and several liability of the appellant with his co-accused for a portion of this amount, with the remainder being the sole liability of the appellant.
Main Doctrine
Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses. Flight is indicative of guilt. The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death, but the death penalty was proscribed at the time of the offense.