People v. Estante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 12, 1967, at about 10:00 AM, the deceased Vicente Forro and his wife Lydia Forro boarded a passenger bus. Along the way, at about 11:00 AM, appellant Cirilo Estante, Jr., along with three other accused, signalled the bus to stop. Estante, Jr. pointed a revolver at the driver and announced a holdup. His cohorts simultaneously approached the bus, aiming their guns at the passengers. Estante, Jr. boarded the bus, collected money, watches, and jewelry from the passengers, including P85.00 worth of a solitaire ring and P25.00 from the deceased. He also took a revolver from the deceased's waist. After collecting the loot, Estante, Jr. alighted but then shot the deceased on the right temple while standing on the running board. He then fled with his cohorts. The deceased was rushed to the hospital but died the same day. An autopsy revealed the cause of death as shock and hemorrhage secondary to a gunshot wound of the right temporal region and perforation of the brain substance. Procedural History: Cirilo Estante, Jr. and Cesar Montano were convicted of robbery with homicide by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Estante, Jr. was meted the death penalty, and Montano was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Delfin Destuir was acquitted, and Rogito Leyso jumped bail. The Petition: The death sentence of Cirilo Estante, Jr. was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court. The appellant's main defense was alibi and lack of sufficient identification.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant's identity as one of the perpetrators of the crime of robbery with homicide was sufficiently established, and whether the defense of alibi is tenable. Whether the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of band. Whether the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place and treachery.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for robbery with homicide but reduced the death penalty to reclusion perpetua due to lack of necessary votes for the death penalty. The Court found that the appellant was positively identified by prosecution witnesses and that his defense of alibi was unavailing.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of appellant's identity and the defense of alibi: The Court held that alibi is unavailing when the accused is positively identified by witnesses who have no motive to falsely charge the accused. In this case, three prosecution witnesses, Lydia Forro, Juan Aldabon, and Servillano Compana, positively identified the appellant as the one who signalled the bus to stop, pointed a revolver at the driver, collected valuables, took the deceased's revolver, and shot the deceased. The Court noted that the appellant did not take the witness stand to refute this positive identification. The Court also addressed inconsistencies in Lydia Forro's statements, explaining that she identified the appellant during the investigation and trial, and her testimony as a defense witness, where she affirmed her affidavit and identified the appellant, could not be repudiated by the appellant. The Court found the appellant's alibi, claiming he was in Sta. Barbara, to be shattered, especially since the distance to the crime scene was negotiable by motor vehicle. On the presence of the aggravating circumstance of band and the penalty: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the crime was committed by a band. However, Justice Abad Santos argued that a band requires more than three armed malefactors, and the acquittal of one accused reduced the number to three. Due to the lack of proven aggravating circumstances, Justices Aquino and Abad Santos opined that the penalty should be reclusion perpetua, as per Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. The majority, while affirming the conviction, reduced the death penalty to reclusion perpetua due to the lack of necessary votes for the death penalty, implicitly acknowledging the doubts regarding the aggravating circumstances. On the presence of the aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place and treachery: Justices Aquino and Abad Santos argued that the aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place and treachery were not sufficiently proven by the evidence. Justice Abad Santos found no evidence that the crime occurred in an uninhabited place and that the mere act of shooting did not constitute treachery without proof of a consciously adopted mode of attack. Due to the lack of proven aggravating circumstances, Justices Aquino and Abad Santos opined that the penalty should be reclusion perpetua, as per Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. The majority, while affirming the conviction, reduced the death penalty to reclusion perpetua due to the lack of necessary votes for the death penalty, implicitly acknowledging the doubts regarding the aggravating circumstances.
Main Doctrine
Alibi is unavailing when the accused is positively identified by witnesses with no motive to falsely charge the accused, especially when the identification is corroborated by other witnesses and the accused fails to refute the positive identification. The penalty for robbery with homicide, when not attended by aggravating circumstances, is reclusion perpetua.