THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDWARD VALENZUELA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appellant is one of six accused of robbery with homicide in the Court of
First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch) some of whom are still
unidentified, while one Manolo Padilla, had a delayed trial having been
pronounced unfit to undergo it for mental reasons, and another died
during the trial.

This appeal is taken only by Edward Valenzuela; his co-accused Manolo Padilla, having been meted also reclusion perpetua, did not appeal.^[1]

The facts as established by the evidence for the prosecution, and quoting from its brief, are as follows:

“At about 8:30 o’clock in the evening of October 13, 1970, two men
entered the C and A Grocery owned by complainant Alfonso Chua, located
at 215 Speaker Perez St. Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City. They ordered
7-up softdrinks. After drinking a little, they went outside the
grocery. After a short while, the two men, together with another
companion, returned and pushed inside the grocery two kids – a boy named
Jesus Zablan and a girl named Rowena Paruli – both neighbors of the
complainant. Two of the men were accused Manolo Padilla and Edward
Valenzuela. Padilla was armed with a small gun while Valenzuela was
armed with a big gun. Upon entering, one of the men told Alfonso Chua,
‘Hold-up ito. Huag kang kikilos, Pagkumilos ka o sumigaw ay babarilin
ko ang anak mo.’ (Exh. M., p. 16, Folder of Exhibits; p. 2, tsn, April
22, 1971).

“The hold-uppers ordered Alfonso Chua to lie down. Alfonso
complied with the order and told them he will not resist and that they
can get all they want. Alfonso’s daughter, Ma. Cristina, also lay down
beside her father as the men ransacked the store.

“Bella Bautista, Alfonso’s sister-in-law, who was then behind the
other counter inside the gro­cery, saw accused Edward Valenzuela holding
a ‘big gun;’ accused Manolo Padilla holding with his right hand a small
gun pointed at Alfonso and with an adding machine under his left
armpit, she saw the third accused getting money from the counter. (id).

“Meanwhile, Jesus Zablan was able to go upstairs and he informed
Mrs. Remedios Bautista Chua, Alfonso’s wife, about the hold-up going on
down­stairs. Mrs. Chua rushed downstairs. In the ensuing commotion,
the man with the small gun (Manolo Padilla) shot Ma. Cristina. Fearing
for the safety of her sister Remedios who was then pushed towards her,
Bella embraced Remedios (p. 3, tsn, April 22, 1971). After embracing
her sister, Bella was pistol whipped on the head by accused Valenzuela
and she blacked out (id).

“The hold-uppers ran outside the grocery, follow­ed by Remedios
who shouted ‘hold-up, hold-up, hold­up’. One of the hold-uppers fired
at Remedios but missed. The bullet hit the window and got imbedded in
the cooler. (Exhs. M and S).

“The couple then noticed their daughter Ma. Cristina bleeding.
They immediately rushed her to the Chinese General Hospital where she
died a few minutes later. (Exhs. M and S).

“Dr. Alberto M. Reyes, Senior Medico-legal Officer of the National
Bureau of Investigation, performed an autopsy on the person of Maria
Cristina Chua and he found the cause of death to be the ‘gun­shot wound
on the face, left side’ of the deceased. (Exh. E, p. 4, tsn, February
23, 1971).

“The hold-uppers took from the cash register P100.00 and five
cartons of assorted imported cigarettes worth P120.00, or a total of
P220.00. (Exh. M).

“On October 27, 1970, upon information received from a police
informer, Detectives Marcos Viñas and Cesar Dalanon of the Quezon City
Police Department arrested accused Manolo Padilla and Edward Valenzuela
at the Honky Tonk Restaurant in Makiling Street, Cubao, Quezon City and
brought them to the Detective Bureau where both were pointed to and
identified by Alfonso Chua, Mrs, Remedios Bautista Chua and Bella
Bautista in a police line-up as the hold-uppers who entered their
grocery. They also pointed at Manolo Padilla as the person who shot
Maria Cristina Chua. (p. 4, tsn, December 8, 1970; pp 3-5, tsn, April
22, 1971; pp. 1-3, tsn, May 18, 1971; Exhs. N, 0, P, Q and R).

“Accused Manolo Padilla, Edward Valenzuela and Felipe Mercado, Jr.
gave sworn statements to the police. (Exhs. A, B and T,
respectively).”^[2]

Appellant’s only defense is mere alibi, which he states in his brief as follows:

“On October 13, 1970 at about five o’clock in the afternoon, the
accused Edward Valenzuela, went to the house of a certain Romy Liamson
at the Alta Vista Subdivision along Aurora Boulevard, going to Marikina.
He was brought there by Atty. Bautista together with Edward
Valenzuela, IV and Ronald Labilles because Atty. Bautista was then
campaigning for the candidacy of Romy Liamson as delegate to the
Constitutional Convention. Edward Valenzuela and his group stayed at
the house of Romy Liamson until about ten o’clock in the eve­ning.
Thereafter, Edward Valenzuela and his group returned home. They also
accompanied their other companions who were members of their club in
going home. Edward Valenzuela arrived home at Magat, Salamat, Project
4, Quezon City, at about past ten o’clock and he did no longer go out as
the weather then was not good, (tsn, pp. 2-9, Nov. 16, 1971; 3-11,
Sept. 19, 1972).”^[3]

The trial court gave more weight, and rightly so, on the positive identification of appellant than the latter’s alibi.^[4]
However, appellant seeks to destroy the positive identification made
by Alfonso Chua because he was asked to lie down on his face, by Bella
Bautista because she was hit, and she blacked out, and as to Remedios
Bautista Chua, she was embraced by Bella thereby reducing her area of
observation.

Before, having been made to lie down on his face, Alfonso Chua had all
the opportunity to look at the robbers, specially as he must have
endeavored to know their identity, before obeying the order to lie down
on his face.

Likewise, in the case of Bella, she was hit only after having enough
time also to know the identity of the intruders. She was hit on the
forehead, so the assailant whom she specified as the appellant with a
bigger gun was in front of her to be clearly seen.

By being embraced by Bella did not entirely shut the eyes of Remedios
Bautista Chua to be completely unable to know or observe the identity of
the appellant and his companions.

Above all, in a police line-up, the appellant was identi­fied even after
being made to change his clothes to test the certainty of the
witnesses’ identification.

Appellant, however, questions the reliability of the identification in a
line-up because the room where the suspects were and where the
witnesses’ were to point at the suspects, had a nylon divider. This may
be true, but the divider was heavily draped, such that what was going
on inside one room cannot be seen from the other room.

On the other hand, what corroboration had appellant to support his
alibi? He presented one Enrique Villanueva who showed unreliability
when he admitted that on a different day, he could not state whether he
was with appellant, say on October 17, instead of October 13, the day of
the incident.

Moreover, the place he claims to be at the time of the robbery is not at
such distance that it was impossible for him to be in the latter place
at the time of the robbery.

The last question is whether appellant was in conspiracy with the other
accused. The Solicitor General suggests an affirmative answer with the
following circumstances:

“1. Appellant and his co-accused met in Cubao, Quezon City, and
agreed to ‘magdedelhensiya ng panginum.’ They boarded a taxicab and
proceeded to Speaker Eugenio Perez Street (Exh. T);

“2. Appellant, Manolo Padilla and another co-accused entered the C
and A Grocery owned by complainant Alfonso Chua. Appellant and Padilla
were both armed with guns which they pointed at Alfonso, his daughter
Maria Cristina, and his sister-in-law Bella Bautista, while their
com­panion was getting the money from the cash regis­ter (Exh. M; pp.
2-3, April 22, 1971);

“3. After Manolo shot Maria Cristina, appellant hit Bella on the
head. Thereafter, the robbers ran outside. When Remedios Bautista Chua
followed them, appellant fired at her but missed. The bullet, a .45
caliber slug, was embedded in the cooler. (p. 2, tsn, April 22, 1971;
Exh. M);

“4. Appellant and his companions boarded the same taxicab and fled from the scene;

“5. Appellant, Manolo Padilla and Felipe Mercado, Jr., gave sworn
statements which partake the nature of interlocking confessions.
(Exhs. A, B and T).”^[5]

The foregoing circumstances indeed, show a single purpose, and action
all leading to, in unison with each acts to the attainment of said
purpose, again clearly showing common sentiment to constitute
conspiracy. Appelant’s liability must, therefore, be a collective one
with his co accused. Perhaps, it is of some significance that his
co-accused, Manolo Padilla, has not appealed the decision, which imposed
the same penalty, upon him, and found him guilty on the basis of the
same evidence.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court convicting appellant Edward
Valenzuela of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to a
penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify Alfonso Chua y Lim
one-sixth (1/6) of the indemnity in the amount of P12,000.00 for the
death of Maria Cristina Chua, to suffer the accessory penalties of the
law and to pay the costs, is hereby affirmed, but modified as to the
civil liability of appellant which should be joint and several with his
co-accused Manolo Padilla, at P30,000.00 as recommended by the Solicitor
General. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Acting C.J., (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., concurs but the civil liability of Edward Valenzuela
for the death of Maria Cristina Chu should be solidarily with Manolo
Padilla for the full amount of P30,000.00 and not merely 1/6 thereof and
the same is true for the value of the property robbed which is P220.00.

---

^[1] p. 7, Appellee’s Brief.

^[2] pp. 7-10, Appellee’s Brief.

^[3] pp. 2-3, Appellant’s Brief, pp. 2-3, Rollo.

^[4] People vs. Dimatulac, 122 SCRA 47; People vs. Abadilla, 121 SCRA 268; People vs. Gamayon, 121 SCRA 642; People vs. Yutila, 102 SCRA 264; People vs. Reyes, 103 SCRA 103.

^[5] p. 23, Appellee’s Brief.