A.M. No. 326-CJ - Villa vs. Llamas

An information for robbery with homicide was filed on April 3, 1989, against accused-appellants Dionisio Lorenzo y de Ocampo and Jeg Gonzales y Bulahabo in Criminal Case No. 32610 of the RTC, Kalookan City.
The charge involves a robbery incident where the accused allegedly conspired to steal cash and jewelry totaling approximately P212,000.00, with the act accompanied by a lethal stabbing that resulted in the victim’s death.

Victim: Edison Paras (also referred to as Edison Ong Paras), owner of the Buenamina Quality Furniture Store in Caloocan City, where he also resided.
Key Witness: Romeo Rotone, an employee of the store, who later testified that he observed the events unfolding inside the premises.
Accused’s Version:

The appellants claimed they were invited by the victim for a birthday party and a subsequent disco outing.
They contended that a third party, identified as Gary “Kabayo”, was responsible for the fatal stabbing, thereby distancing themselves from the homicidal act.

During the afternoon, the victim was seen in the store with his employees while closing shop.
Accused-appellants, along with Gary “Kabayo” (according to their version), arrived at the victim’s residence for a birthday celebration and later to watch a film on betamax in the sala (reception area).

At approximately 7:30 p.m., as per evidence gathered by witness Rotone, the victim opened the door to admit the accused into the sala.
Subsequently, at around 9:00 p.m., while the victim and the accused were in the sala, a commotion arose.
Romeo Rotone, positioned in the adjacent store area, witnessed through a transparent divider that both accused were involved in stabbing the victim repeatedly.

The victim, though mortally wounded with 26 stab wounds (24 deemed fatal), managed to call for help before collapsing.
Neighbors, alarmed by the victim’s cries and the ensuing commotion, eventually entered the premises and discovered the victim’s collapsed state.
The police promptly arrived, and the accused were apprehended.
Physical evidence included the recovery of P1,711.00 from appellant Gonzales and the recovery of the knife from the scene; however, the remaining stolen property was not recovered.

The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the consistent and detailed testimony of Romeo Rotone and corroborated by forensic evidence from the necropsy, which confirmed multiple fatal stab wounds.
The accused presented alternative narratives that attempted to shift the blame to an alleged accomplice, Gary “Kabayo”, for the stabbing; however, no independent evidence substantiated the existence or involvement of such a person.
Additional evidence from police officers (P/Cpl. Abner Castro and Pat. Alexander Gatus) concerning the investigation and the immediate recovery of incriminating items further bolstered the prosecution’s case.

The appellate case revolves around the credibility of the eyewitness testimony, the adequacy of the evidence proving the robbery element, and the propriety of certain police procedures allegedly infringing on constitutional rights.
Both accused argued that the trial court erred by:

Accepting and heavily weighing the testimony of Romeo Rotone.
Incorrectly inferring their active participation in the stabbing and the conspiracy for robbery.
Relying on evidence and testimonies from police officers allegedly obtained in violation of the accused’s constitutional rights.

Whether the trial court erred in giving significant weight to the testimony of eyewitness Romeo Rotone, especially regarding the identification and actions of the accused at the scene of the crime.
Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that the accused conspired and acted in concert in committing both the robbery and the homicidal act.
Whether the recovered physical evidence (such as the money found on appellant Gonzales and the recovered knife) establishes the robbery element conclusively.
Whether the alleged violations of constitutional rights during police interrogation affected the admissibility or credibility of the evidence against the accused.
Whether the crime should be classified and convicted as robbery with homicide, considering the circumstantial nature of evidence linking the accused to the robbery portion of the overall offense.