Case Digest (G.R. No. 89685)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Galanza y Valdez @ Ed, Nicanor Bautista @ Nick, Huberto Aliman y Bisna @ Bert, Regino Balanguit y Cebron @ Budoy and Leo Robiego y Dulay @ Leo, G.R. No. 89685, November 08, 1993, Supreme Court First Division, Quiason, J., writing for the Court.
The criminal case arose from the fatal robbery of Dominador Limbo on December 16, 1984, in Barangay Habay, Bacoor, Cavite. Police investigators later apprehended suspects in two separate Marikina robberies; information from an informant (Lamberto Bonahan) led Capt. Marcos Gotico of the Marikina Police to contact authorities in Bacoor. On January 28, 1985, Lourdes de los Santos, the victim's common-law wife, went to Capt. Gotico and identified Regino Balanguit in a police lineup as one of the intruders who attacked Limbo.
On January 31, 1985, Sgt. Monico T. Dulloog filed a complaint charging Eduardo Galanza, Nicanor Bautista, Huberto Aliman, Regino Balanguit and Leo Robiego with Robbery in band with Homicide. The information alleged that on the date in question the accused, all armed, robbed Limbo of P10,500.00 and that in the course of the robbery Limbo was shot and killed. Galanza, Bautista and Aliman remained at large; Balanguit and Robiego were tried.
At trial the prosecution relied principally on Lourdes' eyewitness testimony describing how, at about 3–4 A.M., two armed men (identified as Balanguit and Robiego) entered the canteen, announced a hold-up, bound Limbo, and that Limbo was shot and died at the scene. The NBI medico-legal officer testified that a single gunshot wounded vessels near the heart and caused death, and a ballistics report linked the recovered bullet to a .38 firearm. Robiego and Balanguit each testified, denying participation and asserting alibis; both claimed they had been coerced into signing incriminating statements while in custody.
On March 28, 1988, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite (Criminal Case No. B-85-178) convicted Balanguit and Robiego of Robbery in band with Homicide...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in convicting appellants based on the identification by Lourdes de los Santos, the sole eyewitness?
- Was the crime properly characterized as Robbery in Band with Homicide under Article 14(6) and Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, or should it be treated as Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1)?
- Should the indemnity awarded to...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)