G.R. No. 126397 - People vs. Cerbito

On September 3, 1992, at approximately 2:20 p.m., a Philippine Rabbit Bus traveling along the North Expressway experienced a hold-up as it approached the Tabang tollgate.
Four men boarded the bus, one of whom was later identified as a 16-year-old companion. They announced a hold-up, using firearms and bladed weapons to instill terror among the passengers.
During the incident, a policeman who was a passenger intervened by shooting one of the holduppers; in turn, he was shot by another robber and subsequently died.

Two separate informations were filed against the accused-appellants—Daniel Mendoza Cerbito alias "Daniel", Vicente Mendoza Acedera, and Jimboy Cerbito Morales alias "Emboy"—along with an unidentified John Doe.

The first information, filed on September 24, 1992, charged them with highway robbery under P.D. 532 (Anti-Highway Robbery Law) for robbing money, jewelry, and personal belongings amounting to approximately P20,000.00.
The second information, filed on March 26, 1993, charged them with homicide, alleging that while armed and acting in unison, they shot Patrolman Edgar Ponce, whose injuries led directly to his death.

She was a passenger on the bus and provided detailed observations through the bus’s large front mirror.
She identified the accused by their distinct physical attributes (e.g., one wearing flesh-colored rubber shoes, two with white rubber shoes, and a 16-year-old companion wearing slippers).
Her account detailed that Daniel Cerbito announced the hold-up, that a policeman (identified as Patrolman Edgar Ponce) intervened by shooting, and that subsequent actions included the robbers divesting passengers of their belongings.
She also recounted how after the policeman got shot by Jimboy and then by Daniel Cerbito, the accused proceeded to commandeer the policeman’s revolver, wallet, and badge.

Aboard the same bus, he confirmed the occurrence of the hold-up and identified the accused by name.
He described the robbers as armed—with Daniel Cerbito holding a “paltik” (locally made firearm), Vicente Acedera wielding a revolver, and Jimboy Morales carrying a balisong knife.
Magsakay’s recollection also mentioned his personal loss (a Seiko watch and P40.00) and the ensuing chaos during which the robberies were committed.

Each accused-appellant denied involvement and presented detailed alibi defenses:

Daniel Cerbito asserted that he was in Northern Samar attending a town fiesta, corroborated by his wife Felisa Castro-Cerbito, Barangay Captain Nilo Sacaguing, and a co-worker, Romeo Incinares.
Jimboy Cerbito Morales claimed he was in his hometown in Candawit, Northern Samar, engaged in farming copra, with confirmation from defense witness Nilo Sacaguing and neighbor Adelaida Balang.
Vicente Acedera contended that he was at his brother’s residence in Quezon City and sustained a gunshot wound later while en route to a cousin’s house.

The trial court, after careful consideration, rejected the defense alibi, ruling that the evidence from the eyewitnesses outweighed these claims.

Convicted of highway robbery (under P.D. 532) and homicide.
Sentenced to indeterminate prison terms for each crime with specific minimum and maximum terms (e.g., for highway robbery, from a minimum of 7 years and 4 months of prision mayor to a maximum of 13 years, 9 months, and 10 days of reclusion temporal; for homicide, from a minimum of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to a maximum of 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal).

The court also ordered joint and several civil liability payments as reparation to the victim’s heirs and to private complainant Amor Magsakay, albeit with modifications in the computation of loss of earning capacity and the valuation of the Seiko watch.

Whether the eyewitness testimonies (from Concordia Pagdanganan and Amor Magsakay) were credible and reliable enough to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the alibi presented by the accused-appellants—asserting their presence in Northern Samar or at a residence in Quezon City—could effectively refute the prosecution’s evidence of their presence at the scene of the crime on the North Expressway.
Whether the defense’s alibi should be given weight in light of the positive identifications and consistent testimony provided by the eyewitnesses.

Whether it was proper to convict the accused on two separate charges (highway robbery and homicide) given that each offense was the subject of distinct informations.
How the imposition of penalties per the indeterminate sentence law should be computed and applied in this case.