G.R. No. 97913 - People vs. Carrozo

The case involves People of the Philippines as the prosecuting party and several appellants including Norberto Carrozo, Dominador “Badic” Antojado, Domingo Polinga “Doming”, Wilfredo “Doydoy” Manto, Precilo “Ontoy” Manto, Carlos “Dongdong” Carrozo, and Claver Carrozo.
The decision rendered by the Third Division (G.R. No. 97913, October 12, 2000) is an appeal from the decision of Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court, Abuyog, Leyte, which convicted the accused of Robbery in Band with Multiple Homicide.
The Information, filed on May 13, 1985, by the then Acting 4th Assistant Provincial Fiscal, charged that on or about March 14, 1985, an armed, conspiratorial group committed robbery for P5,000 and, on the same occasion, brutally murdered Ramon Robin, Sr., his wife Herminia, and their three minor children.

On the day of the crime, the accused allegedly conspired, armed with deadly weapons, and proceeded to the residence of Ramon Robin, Sr. in Sitio Moyongboyong, Barangay Malitbogay, Javier, Leyte.
The prosecution alleged that during the commission of robbery, a violent attack ensued whereby:

Ramon Robin, Sr. was hacked with a bolo, sustaining a hack wound at the nape, which led to fatal hemorrhage.
Herminia Robin was choked to death after being attacked, despite her pleas and attempts to negotiate with money.
The three children – Ramon Robin Jr., Celso Robin, and Flocerfina Robin – were also killed; their bodies were placed inside a sack and later retrieved and loaded onto a sled.

Several state witnesses, including Rodulfo Redubla, PFC Diosdado Cerna, and P/Sgt. Ignacio Rellin, testified regarding the events that transpired at the victim’s house and afterwards.

Rodulfo Redubla, a relative of the accused and former laborer, testified that he was invited for a drinking spree by Antojado and then accompanied the accused to the victim’s house where the crime unfolded.
Testimonies detailed the sequence of events: initial invitation to join a drinking session, arrival at the victim’s house, observation of open windows and a lighted interior, and subsequent violent acts perpetrated by the accused.
The State’s narrative described how, in the chaos ensuing after the robbery, the attackers systematically committed homicide against the family, with particular emphasis on the role of Antojado who allegedly hacked and choked the victims.

Appellant Antojado asserted his alibi stating that he held a drinking party at his house on the occasion of his daughter’s birthday.
Other appellants also claimed denial of involvement, alleging inconsistencies in identification and reliance on alibi evidence presented by disinterested witnesses.
The defense maintained that the prosecution’s witnesses were either inconsistent or unreliable and that the distance from Antojado’s residence rendered his participation in the crime physically impossible.

Post-mortem examinations conducted by Dr. Ernesto Lajara on the bodies of Ramon Robin, Sr. and Herminia Robin corroborated the violent nature of their deaths, noting a hack wound for the male victim and a ligature along with multiple lacerations for the female victim.
Subsequent evidence involving the discovery of the bullet wounds, sled tracks, bloodstains, and the location of the victims’ remains supported the narrative that the crime took place as described by state witnesses.
Law enforcement inquiries, including the investigation by P/Sgt. Ignacio Rellin and corroborative reports from local officials, further solidified the timeline and logistics of the crime, linking the accused directly to the scene.

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants for the crime of Robbery in Band with Multiple Homicide when the proper characterization under the Revised Penal Code should be Robbery with Homicide.
If the term “band” merely constitutes a generic aggravating circumstance without creating a separate offense.

Whether the prosecution’s reliance on the testimonies of the state witnesses, particularly those of Rodulfo Redubla and Pablo Robin, sufficiently established the identity and involvement of each accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The extent to which the alleged inconsistencies and “rehearsed” nature of the testimonies affected the determination of guilt.

Whether the defense evidence establishing that the accused were engaged in a drinking party at the time of the crime provided them with a credible alibi, thereby proving physical impossibility of being at the scene.
Whether the apparent discrepancies in eyewitness accounts regarding the time and sequence of events undermined the prosecution’s case.