People v. Cinco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case involves the robbery of Valentin Santo, an elderly man, and his wife, Luciana Cañete, in their home. The perpetrators, numbering eight and armed with bolos, forced their way into the house at night. During the robbery, Valentin Santo was assaulted and strangled, leading to his death three days later from a concussion of the brain. The robbers also took personal belongings valued at approximately ten pesos, in addition to fifty pesos stolen from the deceased. 2. Procedural History: The eight defendants, Francisco Cinco, Francisco Camero, Calixto Cinco, Tranquilino Relador, Lorenzo Raynera, Tirso Espejo, Iluminado Berio, and Constancio Raagas, were charged with robbery in band with homicide. The Court of First Instance of Leyte found all of them guilty as charged and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, with additional penalties for restitution and indemnity. All defendants, except for Iluminado Berio, appealed this judgment to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The appellants, having been convicted by the Court of First Instance of Leyte for robbery in band with homicide, are seeking review of their conviction and sentence. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony from Fausto Toreno, the home-companion, and corroborating testimony from neighbors Diego Briso, Alejandro Pedere, and Antonio Candela, identifying the appellants. The defense offered an alibi, which the lower court found unconvincing and insufficient to overcome the prosecution's evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment in all respects, noting that while aggravating circumstances were present, a unanimous verdict on the death penalty could not be reached.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the appellants for the crime of robbery in band with homicide has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the defense of alibi presented by the appellants is sufficient to overcome the evidence of the prosecution. Whether the aggravating circumstances alleged by the prosecution were correctly considered. Whether the penalty imposed by the lower court is proper.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court finding the appellants guilty of robbery in band with homicide and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua is affirmed in all respects, with costs against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the appellants: The Court found the evidence presented by the prosecution to be too convincing for the mere alibis to overcome. Multiple witnesses, including Fausto Toreno (the direct eyewitness), Diego Briso, Alejandro Pedere, and Antonio Candela, positively identified the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. Toreno recognized them by the light of the lamp and their flashlights, and identified them in open court. The discovery of Exhibit F, a buri hat belonging to Lorenzo Raynera, near the scene further corroborated the prosecution's case. The testimonies of the witnesses were found to be clear and convincing, establishing the guilt of the defendants beyond reasonable doubt. On the defense of alibi: The Court reiterated its stance that the defense of alibi is always received with caution and must be proved by probable evidence. It is considered a weak defense when supported by witnesses who are related by intimate ties of relationship to the accused and living with them under the same roof. In this case, the alibis presented by the defendants were found to be insufficient to overcome the strong and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence clearly pointed to the guilt of the defendants, rendering their alibis untenable. On the aggravating circumstances: The Court noted the aggravating circumstances present in the commission of the offense as pointed out by the Solicitor-General: (1) that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party; (2) that the crime was committed in the night time; (3) that the crime was committed in disregard of the age of the offended party; and (4) that the crime was committed by a band. For appellant Francisco Cinco, the additional aggravating circumstance of recidivism was also called to attention. These circumstances were considered in the context of the penalty prescribed by law. On the penalty imposed: The crime committed was classified as robbery in band, in an inhabited house with homicide, defined in Article 294, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment in all respects, including the imposition of reclusion perpetua. The decision mentions an inability of the members of the Court to reach a unanimous verdict on the imposition of the death penalty, leading to the affirmation of the lower court's sentence.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery in band, in an inhabited house with homicide, is defined in Article 294, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, with a prescribed penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Aggravating circumstances such as commission in the dwelling of the offended party, at night time, in disregard of the age of the offended party, and by a band, are considered. Recidivism may also be an aggravating circumstance for specific appellants.