THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO BECHAYDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused-appellant, claiming that reasonable doubt exists in
his favor, appeals the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City,
Branch X dated June 28, 1985 which convicted him of the crime of murder instead
of robbery with homicide after having discounted the crime of robbery for lack
of sufficient proof. The dispositive
portion of the assailed judgment reads:

“In view of the foregoing consideration, this Court is
convinced beyond doubt of the guilt of the accused of the crime of murder, four
(4) counts and for each of which the accused is hereby sentenced to Reclusion
Perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the four (4) victims the amount of
P25,000.00 each as damages and to pay the costs.” (RTC Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 21).

In Criminal Case No. 2719, the information which charged the
accused-appellant with robbery with homicide alleges:

That on or about the 6th day of January, 1981, at about 8:00
o’clock P.M., at sitio Dinanglayan, Barangay Buhatan, Municipality of
Rapu-Rapu, Province of Albay, Philippines, above-named accused together with
Rodolfo Bilan and Rogelio Vergara, who are still at large, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping each other, with treachery and
evident premeditation, at nighttime, taking advantage of superior strength,
with intent to kill, and with the intent of gain, entered the dwelling of
Eleuterio Bilon and once inside, did then and there wilfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack and stab the
occupants thereof, namely: ELEUTERIO BILON, MARIA ESCASA, AURELIO ESCASA and
NORRIS MARQUEZ, inflicting upon them mortal wounds which resulted to their
deaths, and thereafter above-named accused, take, steal, and carry away (sic)
from said dwelling cash money and other valuables in the total sum of Two Thousand
Pesos (P2,000.00), Philippine Currency, owned and belonging to said Eleuterio
Bilon.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.

Legazpi City, July 29, 1983.” (Rollo, p. 15)

Upon arraignment on August 29, 1983, a plea of not guilty was
entered by the accused-appellant with the assistance of his counsel de parte.

The Solicitor-General in his brief gives a vivid picture of the
antecedent facts of this case, to wit:

“On the fateful day of January 6, 1981 at about 5:00 o’clock
in the afternoon, Divina Barcelon, a resident of Nagkaubas, Rapu-Rapu, Albay,
was on her way to the house of Percivando Barcelon located in sitio Galicia to
buy fish when she passed by the house of a certain Gomez. There she saw the appellant, Rodolfo Bilon
and Rogelio Vergara, who were then armed with bolos, drinking gin. About half an hour later, while she was
returning home, she again saw the trio in the said place still drinking. (pp. 10-13, TSN, March 8,1984)

At around 8:00 o’clock in the evening of the same date, Jaime
Bertis went to the house of Eleuterio Bilon situated at sitio Dinanglayan of
the same municipality, to buy cigarettes. (pp. 8-9, TSN, November 28, 1983) Upon reaching the place, he saw the same trio having a drink in the
kitchen of the house of Eleuterio while the latter and the three (3) other
occupants of the house, namely, Maria Escasa, Norris Marquez and Aurelio
Escasa, were already sleeping. (pp.
10-12, TSN, Ibid.) The kitchen was lighted by the illumination of the light
coming from the sala. (p. 18, TSB,
Ibid). He heard Rodolfo telling his two
(2) companions that he would be the one to kill first. (pp. 12-13, TSN, Ibid.) Rodolfo suddenly
stood up end went straight near Eleuterio, with the two (2) following him, and
with a bolo hacked Eleuterio while he was sleeping. Frightened by the startling incident, Jaime ran away from the
place. As he was running away from the
place, he was met by Miguel Avila who was then going to the house of
Eleuterio. He was asked by Miguel why
he was in a hurry but he did not bother to answer because he was then so afraid
that he wanted to get away from the place as fast as he could. (pp. 18-22, TSN, Ibid.)

Miguel proceeded to the house of Eleuterio to buy cigarettes. As he reached the place, he stood right at
the door which was partly open and while he was peeping through the door, he
saw Eleuterio inside the house, lying down with a wound on the neck. He also saw Maria Escasa weeping while
embracing the right leg of the appellant who kicked her and, as soon as she
fell from such hold, fatally wounded her with a bladed weapon. Norris Marquez, a ten (10) year-old boy,
woke up from his sleep beside Maria and upon seeing her condition, he embraced
her but while thus embracing Maria, he was also hacked to death by the
appellant. Also awakened from sleep was
an old man named Aurelio Escasa who came out of the bedroom and tried to find
out what was happening when he was suddenly stabbed on the abdomen by Rodolfo
(pp. 10-14, TSN, September 22, 1983)

As Miguel was about to leave the place, he was seen by a person
standing outside the house who at
once called on the appellant and Rodolfo and informed them of Miguel’s
presence. Confronted by the group, he
explained to them that he was there merely to buy cigarettes and a bottle of
gin. Miguel was allowed to leave but
with a warning not to tell anybody whatever he may have seen, otherwise, even
members of his family would also be killed. (pp. 14-15, TSN, Ibid.)

As he was not able to sleep that night, Miguel went home to Legazpi
City the following day and remained silent about the incident. But on January 8, 1981, or two (2) days
after the incident, when his conscience could no longer bear it, Miguel sent a
PLECS message to the Rapu-Rapu Police Station, thru the Legazpi City Police
Station, informing them of the incident. He also disclosed the incident to his wife that same day. (pp.
16-17, TSN, Ibid.)

Earlier in the morning of said date, at about 5:00 o’clock, Jaime
Bertis went to the house of Divina, a daughter of Eleuterio, informed her about
the incident and revealed to her who were those responsible therefor. (p. 35, TSN, October 17, 1983) Divina and
her group immediately proceeded to the house of her father and when they
arrived at the place, the house was still closed with some people around. A few moments later, some members of the
Civil Home Defense Force arrived and opened the house. (pp. 40-42, TSN, Ibid.)

Meanwhile, Sgt. Rolando Victoria, the Rapu-Rapu Police Station
Commander, upon receipt of the report about the incident, organized a team of
policemen. He dispatched them to the
place of the incident that same day. He
later followed them in the afternoon and upon his arrival, he and his men
conducted their investigation. They
found the bodies of the victims in the house already in the state of
decomposition. They also took
photographs of the bodies of the victims. (pp. 12-16, TSN, December 9, 1983)

Lourdes Balute, a daughter of Eleuterio, was also at the scene of
the incident that day and noticed that the things in the house were scattered
and certain valuables such as wrist watches, radio, cash, cigarettes, canned
goods, rice, and other grocery items were missing. (pp. 4-5, TSN, Ibid.) Upon the request of the victim’s relatives,
Dr. Erlandino Albaytar, the Municipal Health Officer of Rapu-Rapu, Albay,
conducted an autopsy on the cadavers of the four (4) victims and issued the
corresponding autopsy reports (Exhs. A, B, C and D) on the same date. (p. 10, TSN, November 14, 1983)”
(Appellee’s Brief, pp. 3-7; Rollo, p. 24)

The autopsy reports aforementioned contain the following
findings:

Re: NORRIS MARQUEZ Y UY, around 10 years old

”1. The corpse was already at the state of putrefaction.

2. With hacked wound at the
base of the neck, posterior cutting the cervical bones and major blood vessels.

3. Lacerated wound (R) leg
lateral portion

CAUSE OF DEATH:

Acute hypovolimia 20 degrees to hacked wound over the posterior
portion of the neck.” (Exhibit “A”)

Re: MARIA LAUDE ESCASA, around 57 years old

“1. The corpse was already at the state of putrefaction.

2. The head was almost
totally severed from the body except for a small strand of skin connecting it
to the body.

3. Amputated (L) phalenges
middle portion.

4. Amputated (R) thumb.

CAUSE OF DEATH:

Acute hypovolimia 20 degrees to hacked wound” (Exhibit
“B”)

Re: ELEUTERIO BILON, 61 years old

“1. The corpse was already at the state of putrefaction.

2. The head was almost
totally severed from the body except for a small strand of skin connecting it
to the body.

CAUSE OF DEATH: Acute hypovolimia 20 degrees to hacked
wound” (Exhibit “C”)

Re: AURELIO ESCASA, around 81 years old

“1. The corpse was already in a state of putrefaction.

2. Stabbed wound 3 inches
in length (L) upper abdominal
wall gapping (sic) with intestinal contents coming out.

CAUSE OF DEATH:

Acute hypovolimia 20 degrees to stabbed wound.” (Exhibit
“D”).

The evidence for the defense which rests on alibi and denial is summarized by the trial court as
follows:

“xxx
that the accused and his companion, Roman Bolante, were asked to work in the
construction of the house at Mancao, Rapu-Rapu, Albay of Ruben Bechayda, the
brother of the accused Romeo Bechayda; that on the date of the incident of
January 6, 1981 the accused was working on the house of his brother; that he
arrived at that place almost three days before January 6, 1981; that he (the
accused) and his helper, Roman Bolante started working there on January 6, 1981
at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning continuously up to about 6:00 o’clock in
the evening of the same day though they took a break at noon for lunch; that
they never left that place during that period as they were hurrying up to
finish the construction immediately; that after the day’s work, the accused
took a rest and after eating his supper he went to sleep; that he slept with
his brother, Ruben Bechayda; that the accused knows the house of Eleuterio
Bilon which is situated at Dinanglayan, barangay Buhatan, Rapu-Rapu, Albay;
that Dinanglayan can be reached by walking or by motor banca from Mancao where
he was working then on January 6, 1981 in the house of his brother, Ruben
Bechayda; that it will only take more than one (1) hour to walk at fast pace to
reach Dinanglayan from Mancao and only ten (10) minutes by ‘kumpit’ or motor banca;
that he denies knowledge of, much less admit participation in the killings
complained of; that he knows personally Eleuterio Bilon being the ‘compadre’ of
his father; that the accused stayed at Mancao for two weeks and after that he
went home to Tabaco, Albay; that accused was apprehended only sometime on June
12, 1983.” (RTC Decision, p. 4; Rollo, p. 20)

The trial court rejected the defense version hence, its verdict
of conviction is now before us. The
accused-appellant in this appeal which was assigned to this ponente on March 2,
1992 interposes the following assignment of errors:

“The lower court erred in:

I

GIVING CREDENCE AND RELYING ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE TWO ALLEGED
EYEWITNESSES WHICH TESTIMONIES APPEAR INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER EVIDENCE AND ARE
CONTRARY TO HUMAN EXPERIENCE.

II

CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR MURDER ON FOUR COUNTS DESPITE UNCLEAR
SHOWING OF CONSPIRACY.

III

NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS
CORROBORATED BY HIS WITNESS.” (Appellant’s
Brief, p. 6; Rollo, p. 101)

Anent the first assigned error, the accused-appellant contends
that the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses are replete with inconsistencies
and defy human experience. The
testimonies which allegedly appear inconsistent with the other evidence as
pointed out by the accused-appellant are as follows: (1) prosecution eyewitness
Miguel Avila testified on direct examination that the accused-appellant hacked
the victim Maria Escasa on the leg while on cross examination the same witness
stated that the said victim was hit in the neck (Appellant’s Brief, p. 7); (2)
prosecution eyewitness Avila declared in open court that the young boy Norris
Marquez was hacked at the back while the autopsy report which pertained to the
said boy showed that the cause of death was acute hypovolimia two degrees
hacked wound over the posterior portion of the neck (Ibid. pp. 7-8); (3)
according to prosecution eyewitness Avila the deceased Maria Escasa was lying
down when hacked while according to another prosecution witness Sgt. Rolando
Victoria who conducted the investigation in this case, Escasa was sitting on a
mat with her neck cut off on a bench (Ibid., p. 8); (4) in his testimony,
prosecution eyewitness Avila did not mention having seen any blanket while the
other prosecution witness Sgt. Victoria described that both Escasa and the boy
Marquez were covered with a blanket; and (5) according to another prosecution
eyewitness Jaime Bertis, he found the three assailants in this case which
included the accused-appellant drinking in the kitchen of the slain Eleuterio
Bilon while the photograph exhibit of Bilon’s kitchen during the investigation
contained only two opened bottles of beer atop the kitchen table (Ibid., p.
10).

The above inconsistencies
are inadequate to overturn the positive and straightforward declarations of the
prosecution witnesses who recounted the tragic and gruesome killings and who
identified the accused-appellant as one of the authors. Hence, the accused-appellant must fail in his
attempt to discredit the prosecution eyewitnesses.

Besides, the alleged inconsistencies can be readily dismissed for
the following reasons:

(1) The apparent discrepancy with reference to the location of the
hacked wound as regards the victim Escasa in the testimonies of Avila on direct
and cross?examinations is a mere oversight either on the part of the
court stenographer or the court interpreter inasmuch as Avila used the word
“also” in reference to the hacked wound inflicted on Escasa. The use of the said word strongly indicates
that Escasa’s hacked wound was similarly located at the neck (not the leg)
where Bilon’s wound was as previously related by Avila. Thus, on direct examination he testified
that:

xxx            xxx                xxx

“Q. Now, please
relate to this Court how these two persons, Romeo Bechayda and Rodolfo Bilan,
hacked Eleuterio Bilon, Maria Escasa, Morris (should be Norris) Marquez and
Aurelio Escasa?

A.  When
I was right at the door
I saw Eleuterio Bilon already having a wound by the neck (witness
by an action indicates the wound in the neck) and which was already bleeding
and said person, Eleuterio, was already lying down or had already fallen.

Q. What else did you see inside that room?

A. Maria Escasa was crying
…..

ATTY. BASE

I would like the answer
of the witness “Madarasta”, which means stepmother, be put on record,
“my Madarasta Maria.”

COURT

Alright. Put in on record.

COURT INTERPRETER (continuing the interpretation).

A. My stepmother Maria Escasa
was weeping and embracing the leg of Romeo Bechayda.

Q. Which leg of Romeo Bechayda was being
embraced by Maria Escasa?

A. Right leg.

Q. What else did you see?

A. He kicked her and when
she fell he hacked her also on the leg.

Q. When  you refer he you mean
Romeo Bechayda?

A. Yes, Romeo.

Q. When you mentioned her you refer to Maria Escasa?

ATTY. BASE

Leading

COURT

Sustained.

Q. When you refer to Maria Escasa to whom are you referring?

A. Maria Escasa, Your Honor. (Underlining supplied) (TSN, September 22, 1983, pp. 10-12);

(2) there is no substantial difference between the declaration
made by Avila in court that Norris’ hacked wound was at the back and the
autopsy report indicating the hacked wound at the posterior portion of the neck
as both locate the mortal wound at the back portion of the body with the
autopsy report having been more specific by its reference to the neck’s
posterior part;

(3) the alleged discrepancy as regards Maria Escasa’s position
when she expired bears no significance inasmuch as the victim’s body was in a
supine position, i.e., lying down with her face upwards, and since her head
which was almost totally severed from her body as per autopsy report was
elevated on a bench, it is understandable why another eyewitness would describe
Maria Escasa’s position as “sitting” and not “lying down”;

(4) the fact that prosecution eyewitness Avila omitted mentioning
the presence of a blanket when he gave a picture of the crime scenario does not
affect his credibility considering that his omission pertained to a very minor
detail which jurisprudence regards as ineffective to taint one’s credibility as
a witness; and

(5) human experience shows that when one sees a group gathered
around a table with beer bottles on top thereof, the said group, more often
than not, would be construed as having a drinking spree regardless of whether
one or two of them would actually not be drinking beer, thus, prosecution
eyewitness Bertis did not commit any serious error in stating that he found the
accused-appellant and two assailants in this case drinking in the kitchen of
the slain Bilon when only two bottles of beer were captured in the photograph
exhibit.

Once again, we rule that:

“x x x The averred inconsistency in the testimony of the
prosecution witness on minor details reinforces rather than weaken his
credibility for it is usual that witnesses to a stirring event should see
differently some details of a startling occurrence. This has been taken judicial notice of by the Court. (People v. Obando, et al., 182 SCRA 95
[1990]). Discrepancies in minor details
are to be expected from an uncoached witness, (People v. Noguerras, 181 SCRA 19
[1990]) and will not impair the veracity of the evidence. (People v. Manalansan, 189 SCRA 619
[1990]).” (See People v. Puloc, 202 SCRA 179; 189-190 [1991])

With respect to the testimonies that allegedly defy human
experience, the accused-appellant argues that the following circumstances are
not credible for being contrary to human experience: (1) prosecution witness
Avila works in Galicia, Rapu-Rapu making abaca strips; on the day of the
killings in question, he testified that he worked all day in Galicia but he
went to Dinanglayan, Rapu-Rapu in the evening to buy cigarettes (Appellants
Brief, p. 7); (2) Avila was the son-in-law of the victim Eleuterio Bilon, yet,
he did not inform anyone including his wife about the killings he had witnessed
until two (2) days had elapsed after the incident (Ibid, p. 9); (3) Avila
declared in court that he was only asked by the accused-appellant and one
Rodolfo Bilon where he was going when they saw him at the crime scene and he
was merely warned not to tell any body what he saw when normally perpetrators
of heinous crimes do not spare material witnesses thereto (Ibid); (4)
prosecution witness Bertis, in his testimony in court described that a Coleman
lamp illuminated the sala where the victims Maria Escasa, Eleuterio Bilon and
Norris Marquez were sleeping while the kitchen where alleged assailants were
drinking was not (Ibid., p. 10); (5) Bertis’ declarations that the four
occupants of the place where the killings transpired remained asleep while the
accused-appellant and his two other companions were drinking and talking
therein and that the hacking of the deceased Eleuterio Bilon while on supine
position which could have produced a thudding sound did not awaken the three
other occupants of the house do not conform to the normal standards of human
behavior (Ibid., pp. 10-11); and (6) Divina Barcelon, daughter of the victim
Eleuterio Bilon, averred that both Avila and Bertis were contracted to strip
abaca on Eleuterio’s land at the time of the incident in question; being close
relatives, it was not natural for them to flee from Dinanglayan and remain
silent about the killings if, indeed, they witnessed the same (Ibid., p. 11).

We are not persuaded by the accused-appellant’s suppositions.

The trial court has weighed the evidence and has ruled on the
issue of credibility in favor of the prosecution. There are no cogent reasons for us to reverse the findings
affected and the conclusions reached by the trial court. Hence:

“The oft-repeated aphorism that the appellate court will not
disturb the factual findings of the trial court especially as to credibility of
witnesses, as the latter is in a better position to decide said question,
having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed their demeanor and
manner of testifying during the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain
facts of substance and value which, if considered might affect the result of
the case (People v. Adones, 144 SCRA 364 [1986]; People v. Patog, 144 SCRA 429
[1986]; People v. Veloso, 148 SCRA 60 [1987]; People v. Acelajado, 148 SCRA 142 [1987]; People v. Alcid, 135
SCRA 280 [1985]; People v. Lopez, 132
SCRA 188 [1984] deserves reiteration” (People v. Joselito Villalobos, et
al., G.R. No. 71526, May 27, 1992; see also People v. Rafael Acuram, G.R. Nos.
98423-24, May 22, 1992 citing People v. Lati, 184 SCRA 336 [1990] and People v.
Payumo, 187 SCRA 64 [1990]).

On the alleged failure of the prosecution’s eyewitnesses to immediately report the
killings in question, it is a fact of life that each person is so unique that
different people register a variety of reactions
when subjected to the same types of situations. (See People v. Biago, 182 SCRA 411 [1990], citing People v.
Niebres, 178 SCRA 114 [1989]). Moreover, it is a matter of judicial notice that there is no standard
form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking occurrence like the
hacking incident in the instant case which even included a four-year old boy
and an eighty-one year old man to whom marked sympathy is generally afforded on
account of the former’s very tender age and the latter’s far advanced age. (see People v. Ponce, 197 SCRA 746 [1991])
citing People v. Salufrania, 159 SCRA 401 [1988]).

As regards the second assigned error, the accused-appellant
impugns the holding made by the trial court that conspiracy exists in the case at bar.

We see no error in the trial court’s finding that conspiracy is
present. As submitted by the Solicitor
General in his brief, conspiracy as shown by the prosecution evidence is
indicated from the following circumstances,
to wit:

“a) Few hours before the incident,
appellant and his two (2) companions were seen by Divina Barcelon in the house
of a certain Gomez drinking gin while armed with bolos;

“b) Eyewitness
Bertis saw the same trio in the kitchen of Eleuterio drinking and shortly
afterwards, Bertis overheard Rodolfo Bilon telling the group that he would be
the one to kill first;

“c) When Rodolfo
Belan stood up and went near Eleuterio who was sleeping in the sala, appellant
and Rogelio Vergara followed him;

“d) After Rodolfo
hacked Eleuterio with a bolo, the appellant in turn fatally wounded Maria and
Norris;

“e) When Avila’s
presence at the scene of the incident was discovered by the third companion of
the appellant, the latter and Rodolfo came out and confronted Avila. The trio even warned Avila not to tell
anyone what he may have witnessed, otherwise, even members of his family would
also be killed.” (Appellee’s
Brief, p. 17)

As we have held in the case of People v. Lorenzo, et al., (200 SCRA 201, 217 [1991]):

“x x x To prove conspiracy, the prosecution need not establish
that all the parties thereto agreed to every detail in the execution of the crime
or that they were actually together at all the stages of the conspiracy. It is enough that, from the individual acts
of each accused, it may reasonably be deduced that they had a common plan to
commit the felony (People v. Caitor, et al., 137 SCRA 761 [1985])

Consequently, there is conspiracy as the evidence by the
prosecution clearly indicates that the acts and behavior of the accused reveal
their common purpose to assault and inflict harm upon the deceased and that
there was a concerted execution of that common purpose (People v. Batas, et
al., 176 SCRA 46 [1989].”

With respect to the third assigned error, the accused-appellant
insists that he was already sleeping with his brother, Ruben Bechayda, at the
latter’s house in Mancao, Rapu-Rapu, Albay when the incident occurred. Considering that the accused-appellant was
positively identified by the prosecution eyewitnesses as one of the assailants
responsible for the slaying of the four victims in this case, the defense of
alibi becomes futile for it is a settled rule that such defense cannot prevail
over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution eyewitness
against whom no motive to falsely testify against the accused can be
established. (People v. Francisco C.
Ventura, G.R. No. 90015, April 10, 1992; People v. Pedro Canciller y Balua,
G.R. No. 97296, March 4, 1992; People v. Desiderio Salazar y Dacanay, et al.,
G.R. No. 88665, January 23, 1992).

Moreover, our pronouncement in the case of People v. Carlos Villanueva (G.R. No. 94133, May
8, 1992) bears reiteration:

“x x x it is important to stress that courts always receive
with caution, if not suspicion, evidence of alibi, not only because it is
inherently weak and unreliable, but also because of its easy fabrication. To overcome the evidence of the prosecution,
an alibi, must satisfy the test of full, clear, and satisfactory evidence. This test requires not only proof that the
accused was somewhere else other than the scene of the crime, but clear and
convincing proof of physical impossibility for him to have been at the place of
the commission of the crime. (People v.
Baring, 187 SCRA 629 [1990] citing People v. Gaddi y Catubay, 170 SCRA 649
[1990]).”

According to the accused-appellant in his direct testimony, in
order that one can cover the distance between Mancao (where he had been
allegedly sleeping at the time of the incident in question) and Sitio
Dinanglayan (where the crime under consideration occurred) by walking, it will
take more than an hour but by “kumpit” or motorized banca, it will
only take about ten to twenty minutes (TSN, August 10, 1984, pp. 7-8). Thus, right from the horse’s mouth, as the
old adage goes, the element of physical impossibility is wanting in this case. Besides, the accused-appellant did not
present his brother Ruben in court to bolster his claim that he was sleeping in
Ruben’s house and in the company of Ruben himself. Hence, the defense of alibi becomes unavailing.

Finally, we are in accord with the trial court’s findings that
save for evident premeditation, the aggravating circumstances of treachery,
nighttime and taking advantage of superior strength are present in this case
and that treachery absorbs both nighttime and taking advantage of superior
strength in the light of the circumstances of the case at bar (see People v.
Pacris, 194 SCRA 654 [1991] citing People
v. Ramillano, 133 SCRA 201 [1984] and People v. Rosario, 134 SCRA 496 [1985]). Considering that treachery qualifies the killing
of the four victims in this case, the accused appellant is guilty of four
counts of murder, in the absence of proof to sustain a conviction for robbery
with homicide as charged in the information.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appealed decision
dated June 28, 1985 is hereby AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the amount of
indemnification to the heirs of the four (4) victims is increased
to FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS P50,000.00 each pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Bidin, Davide, Jr., and
Romero, JJ., concur.