G.R. No. 170472 - People vs. Musa y Santos

On or about June 11, 2001, a robbery with homicide occurred in Marikina City involving a group of accused—Jojo Musa, Robert CariAo, August Dayrit, Cesar Domondon, and Michael Garcia—charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
The incident took place in a jeepney where the accused allegedly boarded, with some hanging to the back and others seated inside, in order to execute the robbery.
Although Roberto Barredo was initially implicated—as he was identified as having fired the gun that resulted in the death of Harold Herrera—barredo’s name was later excluded from the information.

The robbery began when, at around 1:00 a.m., a person (Michael Garcia) clung to the jeepney’s rear and ordered the driver to stop so that his companions could board.
Once the jeepney crossed EDSA near the loading area, Jojo Musa allegedly declared a holdup while the other accused, armed with guns and bladed weapons, participated in robbing the passengers.
Witness Nancy Bonifacio testified that after boarding, one of the robbers (identified later as Robert Barredo) pointed a gun at Harold Herrera—who was trying to retrieve his wristwatch—and fired, causing a fatal neck wound.
Passenger Ryan Del Rosario corroborated Nancy’s account by noting the sequence of events, including the actions of those clinging to the jeepney and the subsequent ordering of the driver to stop for boarding more accomplices.
The testimonies provided detailed descriptions regarding the seating, the sequence of boarding, and the actions during the robbery, including the collection of personal belongings from the passengers.
Post-incident, the victim Harold Herrera was rushed to several hospitals (Sta. Monica, then Amang Rodriguez, and finally East Avenue) where he eventually died on June 22, 2001.

Dr. Maria Cristina B. Freyra, the medico-legal officer, conducted a postmortem examination on Harold Herrera’s body.
Findings included multiple surgical incisions and evidence of a gunshot wound which fractured the 6th and 7th cervical vertebrae, lacerated the spinal cord and esophagus, and led to cardio-respiratory arrest.
A .38 caliber slug was recovered from near the victim’s scapular region, supporting the claim that a firearm was used during the incident.

Nancy Bonifacio provided both an in-court and out-of-court identification of the accused, including positive identification during her testimony.
Photographic identification was administered in the hospital with a series of photos shown; Nancy’s identification was corroborated by her description and through later in-court identification.
Ryan Del Rosario similarly identified some of the accused at the police station, although his identification was somewhat tainted by prior police suggestion.
The identification procedures were analyzed under the “totality of circumstances” test, considering vantage point, attention during the crime, prior descriptions, prompt identification timing, and the non-suggestive nature of the police conduct.

Jojo Musa and Michael Garcia claimed they were asleep in their respective residences.
August Dayrit testified he was at his house in San Mateo, Rizal.
Robert CariAo stated he was working at his aunt’s supply store in BF Homes, Parañaque City.

The defense relied primarily on alibi evidence; however, such claims were undermined by the positive identification by credible witnesses and by the lack of corroborative evidence to prove the physical impossibility of their presence at the crime scene.

Whether the testimonies of Nancy Bonifacio and Ryan Del Rosario, along with the forensic findings, established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the identification procedures conducted both in-court and out-of-court were reliable and admissible under the “totality of circumstances” test.

Whether the alibi provided by the accused—asserting that they were at home or at different locations at the time of the robbery—could negate the evidence linking them to the crime scene.
Whether the defense of alibi was adequately supported by physical and corroborative evidence to create a reasonable doubt.

Whether the coordinated actions and unity of purpose among the accused establish a conspiracy, thereby holding each applicant liable for the robbery with homicide even if not all actively participated in the killing.