G.R. No. 123545 - People vs. Palijon

On the early morning of August 27, 1993, at around 2:00 A.M., three accused—Rodelo Palijon, Carlos Decena, and Jim Mercene—entered the yard of the residence of Gonzalo Reyes and Mellorequina Reyes in San Pablo City.
The victims were elderly balikbayans who had recently returned from the United States.
Decena gained entry into the house by climbing a post and removing glass panes from the jalousy windows, while Palijon acted as the lookout and Mercene positioned himself near the bedroom door.

Once inside, Decena followed Mrs. Reyes, who emerged from the bedroom to use the bathroom, and physically attacked her by kicking and boxing her, causing her to faint after she managed to shout for help.
Mr. Reyes rushed to assist his wife but was met by Decena wielding a steel-edged stool, which resulted in severe injuries that ultimately led to his death at 10:55 A.M. due to “cardio-respiratory failure” brought on by multiple severe contusions and fractures.
The robbers ransacked the house, taking cash amounting to P17,000.00 and various valuable pieces of jewelry worth approximately P100,000.00.

Prosecution witness Merly Reyes Alvero, a daughter of the Reyes couple, was alerted by her cousin Edith Bicomong about the critical condition of her parents and later inspected the scene, discovering the missing items in the bedroom.
The evidence at the scene, including broken items and physical damage, corroborated the testimony regarding the escape and the ensuing investigation.

On October 14, 1993, the Office of the City Prosecutor charged the accused—with details mentioning conspiracy, unlawful entry, armed robbery, and the assault that resulted in homicide—alleging that the accused acted in concert with intent to gain and demonstrated violence or intimidation.
On November 9, 1993, the accused were arraigned before the RTC of San Pablo City; all pleaded “Not Guilty” and both parties waived pre-trial.
On December 15, 1993, Decena and Mercene moved to withdraw their plea and re-arraign to plead “Guilty” to the lesser offense of homicide. They were subsequently sentenced to prision mayor or reclusion temporal, with an additional order to indemnify the heirs of the offended party.

The trial against Rodelo Palijon and Myra Pria proceeded with the testimony of Mercene as the main evidence implicating them in the conspiracy.
Mercene’s testimony detailed the planning of the robbery in Palijon’s small, one-room house and explicitly implicated Pria in notifying the conspirators about the victims’ financial status and facilitating entry.
Pria, although denying involvement by stating she was asleep during the incident, was implicated by Mercene’s positive identification and overshadowed by the corroborative physical evidence of the crime.
Palijon further claimed an alibi of being in Pila, Laguna during the period, and alleged that he was tortured and interrogated without counsel.
Pria also raised issues regarding the legality of her arrest, the absence of a proper preliminary investigation, and other due process concerns by asserting that she was not informed of her rights.

Appellant Palijon contended that the trial court erred in deriving his conviction from the testimonies of his co-accused, arguing that such evidence should be cautiously verified and corroborated.
Appellant Pria argued on multiple grounds: she asserted that her arrest and detention were illegal (lacking a proper warrant, preliminary investigation, and due process), and that her mere presence and the conspiracy formed did not equate to active participation given the absence of evidence on asportation.
The prosecution, on the other hand, presented object and testimonial evidence—including the identification of missing valuables and the credibility of witness Alvero—which established the physical and testimonial basis for the commission of robbery and its attendant homicide.

Did the arrest of appellant Pria, which allegedly lacked a warrant and a preliminary investigation, violate her right to due process?
Was her active participation in the proceedings (i.e., arraignment and subsequent waiver of detention and investigation rights) sufficient to dispel the due process claims?

Whether the trial court was correct in convicting the accused on the offense of robbery with homicide instead of the lesser offense of homicide, particularly in view of the element of asportation.
Whether the essence of the robbery (the taking of personal property by means of violence or intimidation) was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the evidence, especially the testimonies of Mercene (and in contradistinction, Decena’s testimony), sufficiently established the conspiracy and active participation of Pria and Palijon in the crime.
Whether the identification and accusal of Palijon as a conspirator, based on the co-conspirators’ statements and the corroborative physical evidence, justify his conviction under the principles of criminal liability in a conspiracy.

Whether the judicial confession given by Mercene, which implicated his alleged co-conspirators, should be accorded significant weight against the defendants.
Whether such testimonies, despite the defendants’ alibi and denial, satisfy the constitutional guarantee to confront adverse witnesses.