PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CANDIDO ROBANTE ALIAS “ANDI” AND FELIX SILAWAN, JR., ALIAS “ALEX”, ACCUSED, CANDIDO ROBANTE ALIAS “‘ANDI”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Death comes to us all.  But
for death to come to an old and helpless woman in a cruel and brutal manner for a measly pittance is beyond rhyme or
reason.  The utter contemptuous
disrespect to our elders spurred by greed and lust for money is illustrated in this case.

At around eight o’clock
in the evening of July 23, 1983
in Barangay
San Isidro, Balilihan, Bohol,
Patricio Layao and his wife Clara had just taken
their supper.  Patricio, 78 years old,
blind, unschooled and unlettered remained in the kitchen, while Clara, 71, went
up to the second floor of their house to prepare their beddings for the
night.  All of a sudden, Patricio sensed that there were persons upstairs.  He crept quietly upstairs and then heard his wife utter:  “Alex, nganong
inyo man akong guibinu-angan“. 
(Why are you doing something wrong to
me?), followed by a loud thud on the floor.^[1]

Patricio groped for his wife. 
He found her lying on the
floor, moaning with pain.  He touched her
and felt a wound on her head.  He noticed
something sticky and realized that it was blood flowing from the wound.  He massaged her
almost inert body.  Then becoming
fearful that the intruders would turn to him, he tried to move away but Clara held his hand. 
He noticed that she could no longer stand because her right arm was broken so he helped her sit up.  Afterwards, he sensed someone thumping a
piece of wood on the floor and moving towards them.  When that someone struck his wife on the
head, it dawned on him that he had to get away from his wife because he could also be mauled^[2]

He tried shouting to the neighbors for help but he was cautioned
by the person who attacked his wife to refrain from doing so.  Patricio identified that man as
“Alex”, the accused referred to in this case as Felix Silawan, Jr.  But Patricio was also aware that there
was someone else on the second floor beside Alex because he could hear a different set of footsteps.  Then Alex asked
him where they kept their money and he pointed to the trunk.  That trunk was forcibly opened.  Inside was P200 in cash.  After taking the amount, the two malefactors
went downstairs momentarily and when they returned, they were carrying a
lighted torch.  As they passed Patricio,
some embers fell on his back and he pleaded with them not to put the torch near him because he
could get burned.  Then the intruders
ransacked the couple’s belongings in search for more money.  Finding none, they left the Layao residence but
not before warning Patricio not to report the incident to his children and to the authorities.^[3]

Clara suffered a deep
lacerated wound on the left side of her head and a superficial wound over
her right chest and left upper
arm.  She also sustained bruises over her
left eye, chin, right arm and left upper chest.  The examining
physician opined that the aforesaid injuries could have been caused by a
piece of wood.  He concluded that her
death, which followed shortly thereafter, was due to “cardio respiratory arrest, intracerebral
hemorrhage, bleeding head wound”.^[4]

The news of the robbery and
criminal assault against the septuagenarian couple spread throughout the
barrio.  The police conducted an investigation leading to
the eventual apprehension of Felix Silawan, Jr., 17 years old, and Candido
Robante, 18 years old, as the prime suspects.  In an information
dated September 21, 1983, Silawan and Robante
were charged with the complex crime of robbery with homicide committed as follows:

“That on or
about the 23rd day of July, 1983, in barangay San
Isidro, municipality of Balilihan, province of Bohol, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent of gain, conspiring,
confederating and helping each other, entered the house of spouses Patricio Layao and Clara Layao; and once inside, by means of force,
violence and intimidation, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously beat one
Clara Layao by the use of a pointed piece of
wood, thereby inflicting serious physical injuries to the body of the latter,
which caused her immediate death; and immediately
thereafter, the accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away
the money in the amount of TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200.00) Philippine Currency, placed inside the trunk belonging to and owned by the said Clara Layao; the crime having been committed with the aggravating
circumstances, to wit:  (1) nighttime,
being purposely sought for or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime; and (2) disregard of the
respect due the offended parties on account of their age; to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the
deceased in the amount aforestated.”^[5]

Upon arraignment on October
26, 1983, both accused pleaded “not guilty“
to the crime charged and the case was set for trial.^[6] At the initial hearing and before the prosecution began the
presentation of its evidence.  Silawan changed his
plea to “guilty” and implicated Robante as
his co-conspirator.  Thereafter,
his counsel invoked the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty
and minority, to which the prosecuting
fiscal interposed no objections.^[7]

Trial on the merits proceeded with regards to Robante.  On April
24, 1984, the
Regional Trial Court, Tagbilaran branch, rendered judgment convicting Silawan and Robante as
co-conspirators in the crime of robbery with homicide.  The dispositive
portion of the decision reads thus:

“WHEREFORE,
Judgment is hereby rendered:

“1.   Finding accused Candido
Robante alias “Andi” guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, the Court hereby
sentenced (sic) him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
and to indemnify the legal heirs of Clara Layao
severally and jointly with accused Felix Silawan,
Jr., the following amounts, to wit:

(a) TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000) by
reason of her death;

(b) the actual damages of FOUR THOUSAND
PESOS (P4,000) and TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200);

(c) the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P5,000) as moral damages; and

(d) to pay his proportionate share of the
cost.

“2.  Finding herein accused Felix Silawan, Jr. alias “Alex” guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for the crime of robbery with homicide, the Court hereby sentenced (sic) him to
suffer the indeterminate penalty by imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS and EIGHT (8)
MONTHS of Prision Mayor as minimum to TWELVE (12)
YEARS and TEN (10) MONTHS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum
and to indemnify the legal heirs of Clara Layao jointly and
severally with accused Candido Robante,
the following amounts, to wit:

“(a) TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000) by
reason of her death;

“(b) the amount of FOUR THOUSAND PESOS
(P4,000) and TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200) as
actual damages;

“(c) the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000) as moral
damages; and

“(d) to pay his proportionate share of the
cost.  x x x.”^[8]

Accused Robante has appealed, alleging
that the trial court erred:

1.  in finding that he
and Silawan had
conspired to rob the Layao couple and kill
Clara; and

2.  in convicting
appellant of robbery with homicide despite the failure of the prosecution to
prove that the aforesaid felony was committed
and the absence of a clear and positive identification of a credible witness attesting to appellant’s
complicity in the crime.^[9]

From the testimonies of Patricio Layao
and Felix Silawan, the prosecution sought to
establish that there were two malefactors who conspired to rob the Layao spouses and to
kill the wife to conceal their
identities.  The prosecution likewise
endeavored to show that the unidentified
companion of Silawan was none other than accused-appellant Robante
himself.  The Court is convinced that the
prosecution has successfully discharged the onus of proving its case.

Patricio Layao (now allegedly deceased)
reported the criminal outrage to
the police on the day following the incident.  He positively identified Felix Silawan, Jr. as “Alex”, one of the assailants.^[10] He was familiar with Alex’s voice because
the young man often came to the house of Patricio.  The latter was also guided by Clara who was able to shout Alex’s name
before she was clubbed on the head.^[11]

Though blind, Patricio
was certain that there was another
person present upstairs, aside from Alex. 
He could hear and feel his footfalls.  But he failed to recognize
him because he did not utter a single
word.  It was Alex who warned Patricio
not to shout and who demanded where the money was.^[12]

In admitting his guilt.  Silawan gave a detailed
description of the conspiracy.  In
his testimony, Silawan, an occasional
hired hand of the Robantes, pointed to
accused-appellant Robante as his companion in
robbing the Layao couple and in slaying Clara.

He recounted that on July
23, 1983, he and Robante went to Barangay Baonos, Antequera, Bohol,
about three kilometers from San Isidro,
to harvest coconuts.  By four in the afternoon
they were finished and they walked back to San Isidro.  On the way
home, they passed the house of the Layao
spouses.  Robante
proposed to Silawan that they rob the elderly couple,
to which Silawan did not acquiesce.^[13]

Upon reaching Robante’s house, they met
Feliciano Pacot, Robante’s
cousin, who reminded them about the dance in the neighboring sitio of Sal-ing.  As Silawan did not
have any money then, he wanted to borrow from Robante’s
elder brother but he was refused.  Silawan decided to go home but Robante
stopped him and volunteered to borrow money from his aunt (Clara Layao) in Silawan’s behalf.^[14]

Upon arriving at the Layao
residence, the two accused saw the couple on the ground floor taking their
supper.  Robante
entered the abode first and told Silawan to follow
him upstairs.  Since it was dark, Silawan “bumped” into an “arenola”.  Probably attracted by the noise, Clara came
up the stairs but Robante was ready for her.  He clubbed her twice on the head with a “bunal” (a piece of wood measuring about one yard long). 
Clara staggered and fell down on the floor.  Then Robante
instructed Silawan to get a torch to illumine the place and a “bungay” (bolo
used to clean grasses) to forcibly open the trunk.^[15]

Silawan recalled that Patricio was downstairs
at the time but he went up when Clara collapsed on the floor with a loud thud.^[16]

After ransacking the place, the two assailants left and headed for Robante’s
house.  From there they walked to the dance being held in
Sal-ing where they stayed until two in the morning of
July 24, 1983.  Then they went back to San Isidro.^[17]

Feliciano Pacot, a boy of 14 years (he
finished Grade IV), grandson of the dead Clara and witness for the defense,
unwittingly corroborated the testimony of Silawan.  He stated that on the night in question, he
was in Robante’s house.  The two accused were also there.  They were all intending to go to the benefit
dance in Sal-ing. 
Pacot disclosed however that they did not
leave for the dance together.  For some
unknown reason, he left ahead of Silawan and Robante at seven in the evening.  The two remained behind in Robante’s house and it was only around midnight that they made their appearance at the dance. 
They all returned to San Isidro at two the following morning and slept at the residence of Robante.  Hours later, they were roused from their
sleep by Feliciano’s farther, Victor Pacot, who
shouted that Clara Layao had been killed.^[18]

Against the interlocking
statements of the prosecution witnesses, including that of a defense witness, appellant
Robante could only interpose a patently weak alibi
and the ill-conceived pretense that Silawan had
framed him up out of revenge.

Robante, 18 years old, single, farmer
and nephew of the deceased Clara (his father, Pedro Robante
is Clara’s brother) claimed that at the precise time of the robbery with
homicide, he was sleeping in his own house. 
He testified that after
harvesting coconuts from his father’s trees
in Barangay Baonos,
he and Silawan came back to San Isidro
where they took their supper in his house. 
They were planning to attend the dance
in nearby Sal-ing but Silawan
had no money.  Since Candido’s
elder brother would not lend Silawan any money.  Silawan went
home.  Robante
stayed behind in his house and fell asleep. 
At past ten in the evening, his mother woke him up and told him that Silawan had returned. 
Then the two proceeded directly to Sal-ing.  On the way, they passed a creek and Robante saw Silawan wash his
hunting knife.^[19]

On reaching the dance, Silawan
deposited P20.00 with the collector (watcher) for their expenses.  They left the
place at around two in the morning of the next day and headed for San
Isidro and slept in Robante’s
house.^[20]

Robante’s mother, Dalmacia
Robante, 60 years old, corroborated his proferred alibi.  She
recounted that in the afternoon of July
23, 1983, her son Robante and Silawan arrived home together after gathering coconuts in Barangay Baonos.  At about eight in the evening, Silawan asked
permission to go home to get some money for the benefit dance. 
When Silawan returned at ten that same
evening, Robante was already asleep but Silawan “forced” him to accompany him to the dance.  Sal-ing is about
two kilometers from their place.^[21]

On further
questioning however, Dalmacia admitted that she was
“uncertain” whether or not her son Candido Robante and Silawan went to the Layao residence on the night in question.  It was only half a kilometer away from the
house of the Robantes.^[22]

The trial court correctly rejected Robante’s
alibi.  It did not prove that he could not
have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, the Layao residence being a mere stone’s throw from his own
house where he claimed to be
sleeping.  It was corroborated by only
one other person, his own mother.  It has
been repeatedly observed that alibi
is a defense that is weak and
easily fabricated especially
between parents and children and
relatives and great caution must therefore be exercised in accepting the same.^[23] The testimony of a mother supporting her
son’s alibi deserves scant consideration. 
It is undeniably tainted with bias which springs from a mother’s natural
desire to shield her son from criminal involvement.

Appellant, to exculpate himself, could only venture the theory
that Silawan wanted to get even with him.  According to Robante,
he suspected Silawan as his aunt’s killer because at
the benefit dance, Silawan had more money with him
than what he claimed he was able to borrow; that after the death of Clara, Silawan did not show himself up anymore, and that he
reportedly fled when the police came to arrest him.  So on July 28, 1983, or five (5)
days after Clara’s death, Robante went to barangay captain Felix Cabellanes
and reported his suspicions.  This,
according to Robante, led to Silawan’s
eventual arrest on August 1, 1983.^[24]

The testimony of arresting officer INP Patrolman Patricio Bayokbok directly contradicted appellant’s
asseveration.  He testified that Silawan was arrested on July 24,
1983 at 7:30 in the evening.  He could not be apprehended earlier
because he went into hiding.  The police team succeeded in nabbing him only after he returned to his house
on the night of July 24, 1983.  When queried if the arrest was due to the
report of Robante to the barangay
captain.  Bayokbok
replied that it was “based on the statement of the old man, Patricio Layao” who gave the name of Felix Silawan
as the one who struck his wife.^[25]
So it was not true that Silawan’s capture was upon
the instigation of Robante.

Robante further averred that it was Silawan who had the motive to kill the old woman.  He disclosed that Silawan
bore a grudge against Clara because she was
instrumental in pursuing a rape case
where the victim was her great granddaughter and the accused was a certain Pabling Alo, who happened to be Silawan’s
cousin.  But as the records would show,
the case never reached the courts as it was settled for P2,000.  Thus, the theory of Robante
does not hold water.

The trial court adjudged Silawan and Robante guilty of the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.  To sustain
the conviction however, it must be
established will certitude that
the killing was
a mere incident to the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and
objective of the criminals.  It
contemplates a situation where the homicide resulted by reasons or on
the occasion of robbery.^[26]

The
defense contends that the prosecution failed to prove the element of robbery and that its commission has remained a matter of presumption.

The argument is
untenable.  The Court is convinced by the
forthright statement of Patricio Layao that he and
his wife Clara had P200 in cash
inside the trunk on the night of the robbery. 
Moreover, Silawan himself had admitted having asported
said amount from the couple, a fact supported
by Agustin Layao, the couple’s son who stated in his
affidavit executed before the police on July 30, 1983 that he had seen his mother counting P700 in
bills but on the day she died, he knew that there was only P200
left because he and his brother had borrowed the other P500.^[27]

In the case at bar, we are faced with two
young men, 17 and 18 years of
age, both eager and excited to go to a dance but unfortunately did not have the wherewithal to do so. 
Thus, one of them thought
of a regrettable solution.  Why not steal from is Aunt Clara who was rumored to have P20,000
in cash?^[28]
Being old and decrepit, it would be as
easy as taking candy from a baby.  But
they had not reckoned on being discovered even
before they could lay their hands on the money. 
Hence the quick blows on the head of the victim to avoid recognition and
to silence her forever.

Appellant
insists that the trial court should not have considered the testimony of
Silawan against him.  He argued
that before Silawan’s testimony could be admitted against him,
proof of the alleged collusion
must first be established by evidence other than such testimony in court, citing Section 127, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

The case of People vs. Viscarra^[29] has squarely resolved this particular
point raised by the appellant in this
wise:  “The argument fails to consider that Section 127 of Rule 130 applies
only to an extrajudicial act or declaration
of a co-conspirator, but not to the testimony given by a witness
at the trial where the accused
had the opportunity
to cross-examine the declarant.  Besides, it is a familiar rule that a co-accused in a criminal
case is a competent witness for or against
any of his co-accused.“^[30]

But be that as it may, the existence of the
conspiracy has been indubitably established by the prosecution.  Direct
evidence supplied by self-confessed felon.  Silawan, provided the trial
court with a detailed narration of how Silawan and Robante connived
to rob the Layao spouses and how they slew Clara when she surprised them
on the second floor of the
house.  The aforesaid account dovetailed with
the testimony of Patricio
Layao and the findings of the medico-legal expert on
the head wounds and bruises suffered by the deceased.

In imposing the penalty under
review, the lower court held
that the subject felony was not attended by any aggravating circumstance. 
We cannot agree.  Dwelling
should have been appreciated as
an aggravating factor in the instant case, the
reason being that dwelling is not inherent in robbery with homicide because the
authors thereof could have accomplished their heinous deed without the
necessity of violating domicile.^[31]

WHEREFORE, accused-appellant Candido
Robante is hereby declared guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
as defined in paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.  Taking into account the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the prescribed penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death is imposed in its
maximum period which is death.  But in view of the non-imposition of capital punishment in the 1987
Constitution and in line with our recent decisions on the matter, the Court
AFFIRMS the penalty of reclusion perpetua
imposed by the trial court as a reduction from the death penalty.  In addition, all the monetary awards are
sustained except the death indemnity which is increased from P12,000 to P30,000.  Costs against the appellant.

So ordered.

Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., on leave.

^[1] TSN, pp. 88-89, December 22, 1983; Original Records, Sworn Statement of
Patricio Layao, p. 9.

^[2] TSN, pp. 89-90, December 22, 1983.

^[3] TSN, pp. 90-92, December 22, 1983.

^[4] Record of Documentary Evidence, Certificate of Death, p. 4; TSN, pp. 101-103, December 22, 1983.

^[5] Original Records, p. 25.

^[6] TSN, p. 4, October 26, 1983.

^[7] Original Records, Order dated November
14, 1983, p. 45.

^[8] Original Records, pp. 102-103.

^[9]
Original Records, p. 104; Appellant’s Brief, Rollo,
p. 49.

^[10] TSN, p. 152, March 9, 1984.

^[11] TSN, pp. 95, 97, December 22, 1983.

^[12]
TSN, pp. 96-97, December
22, 1983.

^[13] TSN, pp. 8-9, 20, January 10, 1984.

^[14] TSN, pp. 9-10, January 10, 1984.

^[15] TSN, pp. 11, 14, 21, 32, 34, January
10, 1984.

^[16] TSN, p. 35, January 10, 1984.

^[17] TSN, pp. 14-16, January
10, 1984.

^[18]
TSN, pp. 61-63, 65-66, February 17,
1984.

^[19]
TSN, pp. 123-124; 126-129, February 8,
1984.

^[20] TSN, pp. 132-133, February 8, 1984.

^[21] TSN, pp. 114-116, January 31, 1984.

^[22] TSN, pp. 120-121, January 31, 1984.

^[23] People vs. Cabanit,
G.R. Nos. 62030-31, October 4, 1985, 139 SCRA 94.

^[24]
TSN, p. 46, February 10, 1984.

^[25] TSN, p. 151, March 9, 1984.

^[26] People vs. Aquino, G.R.
No.
50523, September 29, 1983, 124 SCRA 835.

^[27] Record of Documentary Evidence, p. 8.

^[28] Original Records, Sworn Statement of Felix Silawan, Jr.,
p. 17.

^[29] G.R. No. L-38859, July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA 743, 753.

^[30] See also People vs. Bazar, G.R. No. L-41829, June 27,
1988.

^[31] People vs. Valdez, 64 Phil. 860; People vs. Apduhan, Jr., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30,
1968, 24 SCRA 800; People vs. Mercado, G.R. No. L-39511, April 28, 1980, 97 SCRA 232; People vs. Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October
23, 1981, 108 SCRA 173.