Case Digest (G.R. No. 120642)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Ronnie P. Reyes and Nestor I. Pagal, G.R. No. 120642, July 02, 1999, Supreme Court First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged Ronnie P. Reyes and Nestor I. Pagal (appellants) with robbery in band with homicide arising from the December 30, 1992 killing of Alfredo Macadaeg and the taking of a chainsaw and two cavans of palay from the Macadaeg home in Cordon, Isabela. The information alleged that the accused, together with three unidentified companions, conspired and, being armed, took the property and that Alfredo was shot during the course of the robbery, his death directly caused by the gunshot wound.
At arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty. The three co-accused remained at large. The prosecution presented three witnesses at trial: Felicidad David Macadaeg (the victim’s wife), their son Reynaldo, and PO3 Jimmy Cabalo (investigating officer). Their testimony described an evening attack in which gunfire was heard, Alfredo fell fatally wounded, four or five men entered the house, two of them (identified later as the appellants) pointed guns at family members while others searched for the chainsaw and carried away the stolen items. Identification of the appellants was made to police only thirteen days after the incident when Felicidad and Reynaldo executed sworn statements.
Both appellants testified in their own defense, asserting alibi. Reyes claimed he had lived in another municipality since 1989 and spent December 30, 1992 at a village birthday celebration, presenting witnesses to corroborate. Pagal testified he had moved to Ifugao in 1991 and was at church rehearsals and a Christmas program on the evening of the killing; he also produced an alibi witness. Trial court found the testimony of Felicidad and Reynaldo credible, discredited the alibis, and on December 8, 1994 rendered judgment finding the appellants guilty of "robbery in band with homicide," sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnity and damages.
The appellants appealed to this Court contesting (1) the trial court’s acceptance of the prosecutio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in accepting the testimony and belated identification of the prosecution witnesses and in rejecting the appellants’ theory of defense (alibi)?
- Was the evidence sufficient to sustain conviction for robbery in band with homicide, or was the offense misdenominated?
- Was the aggravating circumstance of "band" established?
- Did the proof of treachery convert the killing into murder or otherwise alter the proper penalty?
- Were the awards of death indemnity, actual and com...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)