THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LUISITO EROLES Y VERANGA ALIAS “KA RANDY”, ALEJANDRO ROMERO ALIAS “KA NOEL”, FELICIANO PATRIARCA ALIAS “KA DARWIN”, PEDRO …

Two soldiers were killed in the morning of March 23, 1989, at a
restaurant in Quezon Province.^[1]
Their weapons were presumably stolen. That same day, Luisito Elores was picked up by the police for
questioning. No other suspects were
apprehended although the crime was reportedly committed by several persons.

On July 31, 1989, an information for robbery with double homicide
was filed against Eroles and five other persons. The information read in full as follows:

The undersigned accuses Luisito Eroles y Veranga alias “Ka
Randy”, (prisoner), Alejandro Romero alias “Ka Noel”, (at
large), Feliciano Patriarca alias “Ka Darwin” (at large), Pedro
Eroles alias “Ka Rommel”, (at large), Peter Doe and John Doe, the
last two-mentioned accused being still at large and whose true names are still
unknown, of the crime of robbery with double homicide, committed as follows:

That on or about the 23rd day of March, 1989, at Barangay
Lapu-lapu, Poblacion, Municipality of Unisan, Province of Quezon, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
armed with firearms of undetermined caliber, with intent to gain and to rob,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with
force and violence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take, steal and carry away one M-14 rifle, valued at P10,000.00; with Serial
No. 860752, issued to and in the possession of CAA Rogelio Nieva, CAFGU, and a
property of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, to its damage
and prejudice in the said amount of P10,000.00; and that on the same occasion
and by reason thereof, the above-named accused, armed with firearms, conspiring
and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to
kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and shoot C2C Fernando Villanueva, PC and CAA Rogelio Nieva, CAFGU,
respectively, which directly caused their death.

Of the six accused, Eroles alone was arraigned because the others
remained at large.^[2]
He pleaded not guilty. After trial, he
was convicted by Judge Ludovico C. Lopez of the Regional Trial Court of Lucena
City in a decision rendered on May 27, 1991.^[3]
Eroles was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
pay the heirs of Villanueva civil indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00.

The trial court found, on the basis principally of the
testimonies of Pat. Danilo Medina and C1C Geronimo Carreon, that the accused,
in the company of the other accused, shot and killed C2C Fernando Villanueva
and thereafter took the victims’ weapon and fled. It discounted his alibi as an inherently weak defense which,
additionally, he had failed to sustain.

In this appeal, Eroles faults his conviction on the grounds that
the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses are contradictory and inherently
incredible. He claims that the robbery
was not established. Moreover, the
prosecution should rely on its own strength and not on the weakness of the
defense.

It is necessary first to correct the designation in the
information of the offense as “Robbery with Double Homicide.” As we
have emphasized in two recent cases:

x x x it is the
nature of the crime of robbery with homicide that the homicides, irrespective
of their number, committed on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery, are
merged in the composite crime of “robbery with homicide.” It is
error, therefore, to treat the death of the victims as “double or multiple
homicide,” for in this special complex crime, the number of persons killed
is immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed in Article
294 of the Revised Penal Code.^[4]

x x x

The designation of the crime as robbery with multiple homicide is incorrect. Assuming that a complex crime was committed,
it should be categorized as robbery with homicide regardless of the number of
persons killed by reason or on occasion of the robbery.^[5]

It must also be pointed out that the crime of robbery with homicide
is a crime against property.^[6]
The principal offense is robbery, not homicide. Hence, it must be shown that the homicide was committed on the
occasion of or in connection with the robbery as originally planned, and not
independently thereof. This cannot be
presumed. Unless the robbery itself is
established, the crime committed is simple homicide or murder as the case may
be.^[7]

The fact of the killing of Rogelio Nieva and Fernando Villanueva
is not disputed. The autopsy reports
showed that the former died of two gunshot wounds and the latter of four as a
result of the attack against them at the restaurant.^[8]
What is in issue is the identity of the killer or killers. More to the point, was it Eroles who killed
them?

The decision of the trial court seems to have found Eroles guilty
of killing only Villanueva because it decreed the payment of indemnity only to
his heirs. No similar indemnity was
ordered for the heirs of Nieva.

In finding that Eroles was the killer of Villanueva, the trial
court obviously relied on the testimony of Carreon, who said that when they
heard the gunshots coming from the restaurant, he and Medina immediately
proceeded thereto.^[9]
There they came upon Eroles firing at Villanueva and thereafter taking the
victim’s rifle before fleeing.^[10]

The trial court apparently disregarded the testimony of the other
supposed eyewitness, Medina. Medina
testified that when they arrived at the scene of the crime, Villanueva was
already lying dead outside the restaurant and Nieva had also succumbed inside.^[11]
He said it was at Carreon that Eroles fired two shots.^[12]

The appellee dismisses this inconsistency as a minor discrepancy,
but the Court does not think so. It
goes to the very issue of who shot and killed Villanueva and must therefore be
carefully considered in assessing the criminal responsibility of the
accused. Where two alleged eyewitnesses
contradict themselves on such a vital question, the element of reasonable doubt
is injected and cannot be disregarded. Significantly, both Carreon and Medina were prosecution
witnesses.

The other crime allegedly committed by Eroles was robbery. The allegation was that the accused stole
and carried away an M-14 rifle “with Serial No. 860752 issued to and in
the possession of CAA Rogelio Nieva” at the time he was killed. This too must be proved with clear and
convincing evidence.

The memorandum receipt signed by Nieva proves only that he had
been issued the rifle described therein.^[13]
The fact that the soldiers were killed does not raise the presumption that a
robbery was also committed. The
circumstance that they were soldiers does not raise the presumption that they
were carrying firearms at the time of the attack. Even if it did and a robbery could also be presumed, there is no
proof that it was Eroles who robbed them of the gun mentioned in the
information.

Carreon testified that he saw Elores fire at Villanueva and
thereafter take his victim’s gun before fleeing. Medina said nothing of the sort. His statement was that Villanueva and Nieva were already dead when they
arrived at the restaurant and the supposed assailants were already fleeing.

The trial court itself seemed confused about the firearm that was
taken. The decision said that Eroles
got Villanueva’s M-14 rifle and, later in the same paragraph, noted that
Nieva’s M-14 was also missing. It added
that the rifle taken by Eroles was covered by a memorandum receipt signed on
March 15, 1989, by Nieva (not Villanueva). So whose rifle was stolen by Eroles? If anything is clear about these findings, it is that the
object of the robbery is uncertain. That uncertainty casts doubt on the evidence of the prosecution that a
robbery was committed with the killings.

It would have been the better strategy for the prosecution to
present the testimony of Celestina Capuno, the owner of the restaurant who had
earlier signed a sworn statement regarding the incident in question.^[14]
She was the best eyewitness because she was in the restaurant even before
Carreon and Medina arrived. She could
have testified on how Nieva and Villanueva were killed, and by whom, and
whether any robbery occurred at all. For some reason, however, she did not testify for the prosecution.

The Court agrees that the appellant’s alibi is not worthy of
credence. His testimony that he
traveled through several barangays to be at Barangay Kabulihan, to attend a
burial,^[15]
is not believable. He never went to an
interment although there was indeed one in the said barangay on March 23, 1989.^[16]
Moreover, he did not establish that from Barangay Kabulihan he could not have
possibly gone to Barangay Lapulapu and be there at the time the two soldiers
were killed.

But despite all these improbabilities, the weakness of Eroles’s
alibi is not enough to overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. The evidence of the prosecution is simply
too flimsy to show that it was Eroles who shot Villanueva to death and stole
the gun he was carrying. The two
alleged eyewitnesses, both testifying for the prosecution, contradicted
themselves on the actual killing of Villanueva. There is also no convincing proof of the firearm that was stolen
or, indeed, that a firearm had been stolen at all.

The defense is weak, to be sure, but the prosecution is even
weaker. It cannot sustain the
appellant’s conviction against the presumption of his innocence as decreed by
no less than the Constitution itself.

The Court notes the defense suggestion that when the police team
organized to pursue the killers “chanced upon” Eroles, they arrested
him because of his supposed NPA connections. He was a convenient “fall guy” they could easily frame. True or not, these observations jibe with
the significant fact that Eroles had not sought to hide or flee after the
commission of the crime. He alone of
the six persons who allegedly attacked the two soldiers did not go into
hiding. He alone did not elude trial
and conviction.

The Court is not convinced to the point of moral certainty that
Luisito Eroles is the person who killed Villanueva (and much less Nieva) and
that a robbery was committed on the occasion or by reason of such killing. As there is not enough evidence to support
the conclusion that he is guilty of the crime charged, he is entitled to be
exonerated on the ground of reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Lucena City in Criminal Case No. 89-600 is REVERSED, and appellant Luisito
Eroles is hereby ACQUITTED, with no pronouncement as to costs. He is ordered released immediately.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Quiason,
JJ., concur.

Griño-Aquino, J., on leave.

^[1]
TSN, pp. 4-5, April 17, 1990.

^[2]
Original Records, p. 17.

^[3]
Judgment: Original Records, pp.
135-145.

^[4]
People v. Marañon, 199 SCRA 421.

^[5]
People v. Ponciano, 204 SCRA 627.

^[6]
Art. 294, Sec. 1, Title Ten of the Revised Penal Code.

^[7]
Angelo v. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 402 citing People v. Pacala,
58 SCRA 370.

^[8]
Exhibits B & C, Original Records, pp. 78-79.

^[9]
TSN, p. 8, June 22, 1990.

^[10]
Ibid.

^[11]
TSN, p. 5, April 17, 1990.

^[12]
Ibid.

^[13]
Exhibit G, Original Records, p. 86.

^[14]
Original Records, p. 9.

^[15]
TSN, p. 4, Oct. 18, 1990.

^[16]
TSN, p. 6, Jan. 29, 1991.