PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARCELINO MORES Y VILLANUEVA ALIAS “CHRISTOPHER”, RONNIE RACUMA AND DANILO ZAMORA, ACCUSED. DANILO ZAMORA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Zamora

The Case

This is People versus Zamora, a criminal appeal from a conviction for robbery with homicide. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Marcelino Mores, Ronnie Racuma, and Danilo Zamora for entering the Caltex gasoline station in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, taking the day's earnings, and killing the night guard, Alex Montemayor. Only Mores and Zamora stood trial, and only Zamora appealed. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it shows how the Supreme Court weighs a lone eyewitness against prior inconsistent affidavits and a defense of alibi, and it fixes the penalty where two aggravating circumstances attend a robbery with homicide committed while the death penalty stood suspended.

Procedural History

The case was tried by Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. The trial court found Mores and Zamora guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of robbery with homicide under paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. It appreciated one generic aggravating circumstance, superior strength, and no mitigating circumstance. Because the death penalty had been abolished under the 1987 Constitution, it sentenced both to reclusion perpetua, ordered them to indemnify Belen Arago in the amount of 10,455 pesos, and ordered them to pay the heirs of Alex Montemayor 50,000 pesos as actual damages. Only Zamora appealed, assigning two errors: that the trial court gave credence to the eyewitness Virgilio Castillo despite materially inconsistent sworn statements, and that it rejected his alibi despite the weakness of the prosecution's evidence. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction with modification of the civil liability.

Facts

On the early morning of September 9, 1991, Virgilio Castillo, a nineteen-year-old who washed buses parked at the Caltex station, was sleeping in the station office with the night guard, Alex Montemayor. At about two o'clock, Castillo woke to urinate and met the three accused outside. They warned him not to return inside and told him they only needed to say something to Montemayor. Fearing for his life, Castillo tried without success to rouse the drivers and conductors sleeping in nearby buses, then sat inside Golden Rose Bus Number 16.

From the bus, through the glass walls of the office, Castillo watched Zamora take an iron pipe from the Mindomar Bus and Mores break a beer bottle behind the water tank. The three entered the office. Racuma stabbed Montemayor in the throat with the broken bottle while Zamora and Mores pinned him down by the hands and hair. Racuma then used the iron pipe to break the glass pad on the table, causing the body to fall, and to force open a cabinet from which he took a plastic bedpan containing the day's earnings, which Castillo had earlier helped count at more than 10,000 pesos. The three left with the bedpan.

Two other witnesses corroborated Castillo. Wilfredo Alegre, driving a tricycle, saw three men with blood-stained clothes leave the station, one carrying a plastic bedpan, and identified Mores and Zamora. Cesar Gutierrez saw three men dividing money near the old Petron site, two in blood-stained shirts, and identified the same two. The bedpan was recovered that morning, and the autopsy showed death from hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds. Mores admitted being present but claimed he was forced under threat of death. Zamora denied participation and set up alibi, claiming he was in Morente, Bongabon, attending to his wife who was delivering a child.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the eyewitness Virgilio Castillo despite inconsistencies between his two sworn statements.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in rejecting the defense of alibi despite the alleged weakness of the prosecution's evidence.
• Whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed given the aggravating circumstances attending the crime.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as charged in the information, provides:

Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.

This is the offense charged and the source of the penalty imposed on the accused.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, on the application of indivisible penalties, provides:

In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

The Court invokes this rule to explain why reclusion perpetua, a single indivisible penalty, is imposed regardless of the aggravating circumstances found.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the inconsistencies in Castillo's affidavits did not destroy his credibility. Affidavits are generally not prepared by the affiants themselves, are ex parte, and are inferior to testimony given in open court. Castillo testified in open court, positively identified both accused, and gave a straightforward and consistent narration, and his testimony was subject to cross-examination. The Court held that the existence of such testimony renders immaterial whatever inconsistencies there may have been in the affidavits he previously executed.

On the second issue, the Court held that alibi and denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving and cannot outweigh the positive identification by disinterested witnesses with no apparent motive to falsify. The positive and categorical identification by the eyewitness deserved far greater credence.

On the third issue, the Court found that in addition to superior strength, the aggravating circumstance of treachery attended the crime, since the victim was sleeping when attacked. With two aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the maximum penalty of death would be imposable under Article 63. However, because the offense was committed during the suspension of the imposition of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution and before its re-imposition under Republic Act Number 7659, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court quoted the governing rule:

In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

Doctrine

First, affidavits are inferior to testimony in open court. Where the affiant is available and testifies, inconsistencies between his affidavit and his testimony do not by themselves discredit him, because affidavits are usually prepared by others, are ex parte, and are often incomplete. Second, alibi and denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving and cannot prevail over positive identification by credible, disinterested witnesses. Third, where the crime is committed during the suspension of the death penalty and before its re-imposition under Republic Act Number 7659, the penalty is reclusion perpetua, which as a single indivisible penalty is imposed regardless of aggravating or mitigating circumstances under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Danilo Zamora, modified the civil liability to 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity to the heirs of Alex Montemayor and 10,455 pesos as actual damages to Belen Arago, and imposed costs against the appellant.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an affidavit is inferior to testimony in open court, and alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. Examiners use this case to test the weight of prior inconsistent sworn statements and the rule that reclusion perpetua, as a single indivisible penalty, is imposed regardless of aggravating circumstances.