THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO MESIAS Y SEBASTIAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Mesias

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Danilo Mesias y Sebastian, an appeal from a conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under the Revised Penal Code. Five armed men entered the Cruz home in Quezon City on the night of September 26, 1980, took cash and goods, and killed the father of the family, Vivencio Cruz. Only Mesias was charged, and he was convicted by the trial court. The case matters for the Bar because it gathers in one decision the rules on the credibility of a child witness, the weakness of alibi and of the so-called double defense, the appreciation of dwelling as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide, and the correct measure of civil liability.

Procedural History

Mesias was arraigned before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch Thirty-One, sitting in Quezon City, through Judge Rodolfo Ortiz, and he pleaded not guilty to robbery with homicide. After trial, on January 26, 1982, the trial court rendered judgment convicting him beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and awarding the heirs compensatory damages, the value of the unrecovered cash and goods, burial expenses, moral damages, and a monthly allowance for loss of earning capacity. Mesias appealed directly to the Supreme Court, insisting on his innocence and raising alibi as his principal defense.

Facts

At around eight o'clock in the evening of September 26, 1980, while Olympia Cruz was setting the table for dinner, five armed men, four of them masked, barged into the family home on Kasunduan Street in Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City. Vivencio Cruz was in the living room; his six-year-old son Marlon was in the bedroom watching television. Three men poked their guns at Vivencio. Olympia was blindfolded with a red handkerchief, frisked, and brought inside a room where she was told to produce the family's money and gun. The men ransacked the house, and the family explained that they had money from their store but no gun.

Marlon was allowed to return to the bedroom. Through the open door he saw the robber who was not wearing a mask stab his father three times, twice on the chest and once on the left neck, with what appeared to be an ice pick. The boy ran to his mother crying that his father had been stabbed. Olympia removed her blindfold and saw her husband apparently lifeless and bathed in his own blood. The robbers had fled, taking cash and items valued at more than nine thousand pesos. The autopsy the next day showed three stab wounds and death from severe hemorrhage.

Olympia gave the police a description of the unmasked robber, and this led to the apprehension of Danilo Mesias, a twenty-five-year-old mechanic, whom Olympia and Marlon identified as among the malefactors. Of the five offenders, only Mesias was charged. At trial he raised alibi, claiming he slept early at his sister's house about half a kilometer from the crime scene, and he claimed that the witnesses mistook him for a double who lived in the same area. The defense also stressed that the medico-legal officer described the weapon as a single-bladed pointed stabbing instrument, not an ice pick.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused was positively identified as the person who killed Vivencio Cruz, despite the discrepancy between the witnesses' testimony that an ice pick was used and the autopsy finding of a single-bladed pointed instrument.
• Whether or not the testimony of six-year-old Marlon Cruz should be given full weight and credit.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi, corroborated by the accused's sister, can prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not dwelling should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery with homicide.
• Whether or not the monetary awards granted by the trial court to the victim's heirs have sufficient legal basis.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the accused was charged and convicted, 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 special complex crime of robbery with homicide, and the killing of Vivencio Cruz resulted by reason of, or on the occasion of, the robbery.

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

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

The trial court applied this rule on the assumption that no aggravating circumstance attended the crime, an assumption the Supreme Court corrected by appreciating dwelling.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the discrepancy on the weapon must give way to the positive identification of the accused. Although the widow did not see the stabbing because she was blindfolded, her son's testimony deserved full weight. Inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses do not affect their credibility; what is essential is that Marlon unhesitatingly identified the accused as the sole person responsible for his father's death.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that children of sound mind are likely to be more observant of incidents within their view than older persons, and once it is established that they understood the nature and character of an oath, full faith and credit should be given to their testimony. Marlon remained firm under direct and cross-examination, repeatedly naming Mesias as the killer, and his mistaken description of the weapon was a minor lapse when weighed against his unerring recognition of the killer.

On the third issue, the Court held that the alibi deserved little consideration. Mesias himself admitted that his sister's house was a mere half kilometer from the Cruz residence, so it was not physically impossible for him to have been at the scene. The corroboration of his sister was biased and inconclusive, for alibi is at best a weak defense and easy of fabrication, especially among relatives. The claim of a double was absurd, self-serving, and uncorroborated.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in finding no aggravating circumstance. Dwelling should have been appreciated, because dwelling is not inherent in robbery with homicide; the author of the crime could have accomplished the heinous deed without violating the domicile of the victim. Taking dwelling into account, the prescribed penalty of reclusion perpetua to death should be imposed in its maximum period, which is death; but in view of the abolition of capital punishment in the 1987 Constitution, the Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua as a reduction from the death penalty.

On the fifth issue, the Court modified the monetary awards. The heirs were entitled only to fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity, nine thousand seventy-three pesos and seventy-five centavos representing the unrecovered cash and goods, and ten thousand pesos as burial expenses. The awards of compensatory damages, moral damages, and the monthly allowance for loss of earning capacity were eliminated for want of sufficient proof that the heirs had a legal right thereto.

Doctrine

First, the credibility of a witness is not affected by flaws and inconsistencies in minor details, so long as the main incident and the identity of the malefactors are consistent. Second, a child of sound mind who understood the nature and character of an oath is a competent and credible witness, and full faith and credit should be given to the testimony of an intelligent child who remained firm under cross-examination. Third, for alibi to be effectual, it must be shown not only that the accused was elsewhere at the time, but that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime; alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses and their clear identification of the accused. Fourth, dwelling is an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide because it is not inherent in that crime. Fifth, civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos is awarded to the heirs of the victim in line with jurisprudence, while moral damages and loss of earning capacity require sufficient proof.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, but modified the judgment by awarding the heirs fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity, ten thousand pesos for burial expenses, and nine thousand seventy-three pesos and seventy-five centavos for the unrecovered cash and stolen goods, while deleting the awards of compensatory damages, moral damages, and loss of earning capacity, with costs against the accused.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused, and that dwelling is an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide because it is not inherent in the crime. Examiners use this case for the credibility of child witnesses, the requisites of a valid alibi, and the correct civil liability in a special complex crime.