G.R. No. 109775 - People vs. Malimit

Appellant José Encarnacion Malimit (alias “Manolo”) was charged by Information dated November 28, 1991 with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
The Regional Trial Court of Southern Leyte, Branch 26 convicted him and imposed reclusion perpetua, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of ₱50,000.00, and to pay costs.

At about 8:00 PM, Onofre Malaki was attending his store. His houseboy, Edilberto Batin, was cooking chicken in the kitchen behind the store (TSN, June 19, 1992, p. 14).
Farmer Florencio Rondon arrived to buy agricultural chemicals; his house lay about 150 meters from the store (TSN, May 22, 1992, pp. 19, 24).
Batin, coming from the kitchen, saw appellant exiting the store holding a blood-stained bolo, while Malaki lay on the floor covered in blood and struggling for life (TSN, June 9, 1992, p. 14).
Rondon, five meters outside the store, also saw appellant rushing out with the bolo; the store’s petromax lamp provided enough light for positive identification (TSN, May 22, 1992, pp. 22, 29).

Batin went out to seek help and met Rondon; they informed Eutiquio Beloy (Malaki’s brother-in-law) of the incident (TSN, June 9, 1992, p. 15).
Beloy and Batin returned to the store, found Malaki’s lifeless body, observed the ransacked cash drawer, and noted the victim’s wallet was missing (TSN, June 9, 1992, pp. 16-17).
On August 6, 1991, witness Elmer Ladica saw appellant, in the company of policemen, retrieve Malaki’s wallet from beneath a stone at the seashore in Barangay Hingatungan (TSN, June 9, 1992, pp. 4-5).
Appellant admitted in his own testimony that he led police to the hidden wallet at the seashore (TSN, Sept. 23, 1992, pp. 8-9).

Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of Rondon and Batin despite their alleged five-month delay in identifying appellant as perpetrator.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting Malaki’s wallet and its contents as evidence, allegedly obtained in violation of appellant’s constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
Whether the prosecution failed to prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.