Case Digest (G.R. No. 221427)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Alvin J. Labagala and Romeo Labagala, G.R. No. 221427, July 30, 2018, the Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged appellants Alvin J. Labagala and Romeo Labagala, together with co-accused Pablito Palens a.k.a. "Jun", Salve A. Pascual, and Michael Doe, in an Amended Information dated December 23, 2002 with robbery with homicide for the killing of Mario P. Legaspi, Sr. The information alleged that on June 12, 2002 the accused, armed with a deadly weapon and with intent to gain, forcibly took jewelry and a pistol from the victim and, on the occasion of the robbery, attacked and stabbed him, inflicting injuries that caused his death; qualifying circumstances of treachery, superior strength, means to weaken the victim's defense and premeditation were alleged.
At arraignment appellants pleaded not guilty and trial ensued. The prosecution’s key witness was Jun Alberto (referred to elsewhere in the record as June Alberto), who testified that on the evening of June 12, 2002 he was with the victim when four men entered the yard after Salve Pascual came in to buy cigarettes; Jun identified Alvin and Romeo in open court, testified that Alvin poked and whipped the victim with a gun, removed two rings, a necklace and a wristwatch, and dragged the victim into the house; after a commotion the assailants fled and Jun later found the victim dead. Appellants denied participation and asserted alibi defenses: Romeo said he was harvesting palay in Talavera for about a month; Alvin claimed to have been in Tanza, Navotas selling vegetables.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Cabanatuan City, in a Decision dated November 15, 2012 convicted appellants of robbery with homicide (Art. 293 in relation to Art. 294, par. 1, Revised Penal Code) and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua; Salve was acquitted for insufficiency of proof, Pablito and Michael remained at large and the case against them was archived with alias warrants issued. The RTC ordered return of the stolen jewelry and awarded P50,000 civil indemnity, P50,000 moral damages and P25,000 temperate damages.
The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06040, affir...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the prosecution able to sufficiently prove the elements of robbery with homicide where the incident was narrated by a single, uncorroborated eyewitness (Jun)?
- Did appellants, together with their co-accused who remain at large, act in conspiracy in committing...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)