Title
People vs. Salazar y Seroma
Case
G.R. No. 99355
Decision Date
Aug 11, 1997
Appellants stabbed a security guard, stole his revolver, and fled. Convicted of homicide and theft, not robbery with homicide, due to lack of intent.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 99355)

Statement of the Case

The case arises from an appeal by Appellants Salazar and Gotangugan from a judgment by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, which convicted them of robbery with homicide. The prosecution accused them, alongside an unidentified companion, of robbing security guard Crispin Gatmen and subsequently committing homicide during the incident.

Facts of the Case

On March 10, 1989, at approximately 3:30 AM, witnesses Vicente Miranda, Jr., and Pedro Soriano observed Salazar and Gotangugan, armed and with an unidentified third person, approach and assault the victim. Salazar allegedly pulled out a dagger and handed it to Gotangugan, who then stabbed Gatmen multiple times, leading to his death. The appellants were seen stealing Gatmen's firearm during the attack.

Evidence for the Prosecution

Witness testimonies detailed the sequence of events leading to the robbery and homicide. Eyewitness accounts noted the prominent lighting at the scene, allowing clear identification of the assailants. Medical findings corroborated the eyewitnesses' accounts, detailing several stab wounds on the victim.

Evidence for the Defense

In contrast, the appellants presented an alibi, claiming they were asleep at home at the time of the incident and later arrested without a warrant. They strenuously denied involvement in the crime and characterized their arrest as unlawful.

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court found the alibi insufficient, dismissing it as weak. It accepted the prosecution’s evidence and witness credibility, ultimately convicting both appellants of robbery with homicide, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and imposing damages upon them.

Assignment of Errors

The appellants contended that the trial court erred in assessing the credibility of prosecution witnesses, in its overall evidence categorization, and in the handling of their alibi. They argued inconsistencies in witnesses’ testimonies and claimed improper admission of evidence due to their alleged unlawful arrest.

The Court's Ruling

Upon reviewing the case, the Court concluded that while the evidence supported convictions for homicide and theft as separate offenses, the prosecution did not establish the necessary connection to affirm the complex crime of robbery with homicide. The Court emphasized that intent to rob must be proven as the primary motive for the homicide, which was not adequately demonstrated here.

Credibility of Witnesses and Sufficiency of Evidence

The Court upheld the trial court's findings regarding witness credibility, citing that the minor inconsistencies in testimonies did not undermine the overall coherence of their statements. Both eyewitness accounts significantly corroborated each other, asserting that the identities of the assailants were adequately established.

Elements

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.