PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO GALANZA Y VALDEZ @ ED, NICANOR BAUTISTA @ NICK, HUBERTO ALIMAN Y BISNA @ BERT, REGINO BALANGUIT Y CEBRON @ BUDOY AND L…

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite in Criminal Case No. B-85-178, finding Regino
Balanguit y Cebron and Leo Robiego y Dulay guilty of Robbery in Band with
Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing them, in
the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, “to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the victim,
jointly and severally (1) in the amount of P30,000.00 for the death of
Dominador Limbo; (2) P10,500.00 for the money taken from the victim; (3) moral damages of P5,000.00; and (4)
exemplary damages of P5,000.00 and to pay the proportionate cost” (Rollo,
p. 49).

Lourdes de los Santos would not have met face to face with the
killers of her common-law-husband, Dominador Limbo, were it not for the
information relayed to her by Capt. Marcos Gotico, Chief of the Investigation
Section of the Marikina Police, that suspects in two robbery cases in Marikina
could be the same culprits who killed Limbo in Bacoor, Cavite.

Capt. Gotico provided such information after Lamberto Bonahan had
confided to him that the group who had been apprehended in Marikina for robbery
was also involved in the robbery with homicide in Bacoor. Since the informant did not know the name of
the victim in Bacoor, Capt. Gotico wrote a letter addressed to “Sa mga
kinauukulan” in Bacoor.

Consequently, on January 28, 1985, Lourdes de los Santos went to
the office of Capt. Gotico. Lourdes was
able to identify Regino Balanguit in a police line-up as one of the killers of
Limbo (TSN, April 10, 1986, p. 10; TSN, April 22, 1986, p. 13).

On January 31, 1985, Sgt. Monico T. Dulloog, the PC
investigator-in-charge, filed a complaint for Robbery in band with Homicide
against Eduardo Galanza, Nicanor Bautista, Huberto Aliman, Regino Balanguit and
Leo Robiego. In due course, the
following information for Robbery in band with Homicide was filed against them:

“That on or about the 16th day of December 1984, in the
Municipality of Bacoor, Province of Cavite, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Regino Balanguit and Leo
Robiego together with Eduardo Galanza, Nicanor Bautista and Huberto Aliman who
are still at-large, then all armed with short firearms conspiring,
confederating together and mutually assisting and helping one another, with
intent to gain and by means of violence against or intimidation on the person
of one Dominador Limbo, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously rob, take and carry away cash money in the total amount of TEN
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P10,500.00), Philippine Currency, to the damage
and prejudice of the latter in the aforestated amount and by reason of or on
occasion of the aforesaid act, the above named accused Regino Balanguit and Leo
Robiego together with Eddie Galanza, Nicanor Bautista and Huberto Aliman who
are all still at-large, then all armed with short firearms, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping and assisting one another, with intent to
kill and without justifiable cause, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and shoot at one Dominador Limbo hitting the
latter on his chest which wound caused the direct and proximate death of said
Dominador Limbo, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs” (Rollo, p. 17).

Regino Balanguit and Leo Robiego were brought to trial, while
Eduardo Galanza, Nicanor Bautista and Huberto Aliman remained at-large.

The case for the prosecution was established mainly through the
testimony of Lourdes de los Santos.

According to Lourdes, Limbo woke up between 3:00 and 4:00 A.M. of
December 16, 1984, as he was preparing to go to Batangas on business. Their house in Barangay Habay, Bacoor,
Cavite, had a canteen. The door was
lighted by a fluorescent bulb, its interior by a 40-watt bulb and its balcony
by a 20-watt bulb. There was an
electric lamp on a post near the house.

When someone knocked at the door, Limbo asked who it was and
someone replied, “Pagbili ng sigarilyo.” Limbo then asked what brand
of cigarette the man wanted to buy. When he heard no response, he opened the door. Balanguit and Robiego, armed with guns, entered the canteen
saying, “Hold up ito. Huwag kayong
kikilos ng masama.” Galanza, in the meantime,
stayed outside. Limbo told the two,
“Wala kaming pera.” He was then shot on the chest at short
range. He fell on the floor, screaming
and writhing in pain. Robiego pointed a
gun at him and told him to keep quiet.

Robiego then hurriedly tied the hands and feet of Limbo with a
nylon cord while Balanguit, with his gun pointed at Lourdes, ordered her to get
their money. Frightened, Lourdes got
the P10,500.00 wrapped in a plastic bag, which was kept in a tool box placed
underneath the door. She gave the money
to Robiego but as the latter grabbed the plastic bag from her, he accidentally
tore it. The peso bills were scattered
on the floor. After picking up the
money, Robiego and Balanguit fled.

Limbo died on the spot. His body was brought to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for
autopsy.

Dr. Ricardo G. Ibarrola, the NBI Medico-Legal officer who
conducted the autopsy and prepared the autopsy report, (Exh. “F”),
said that Limbo could not have survived the single gunshot wound because three
big blood vessels near the heart were damaged.

The ballistics report, (Exh. “G”), states that the
bullet marked “DL”, which was recovered from Limbo’s body, is a
caliber .38 bullet “fired through the barrel of a caliber .38 firearm
having six (6) lands and six (6) grooves, twisting to the left.”

The defense was anchored on alibis and denials.

Robiego testified that in the early morning of December 16, 1984,
he was in his house in Sampaloc, Manila and therefore it was impossible for him
to have perpetrated the crime. He
admitted having executed a statement owning commission of the crime while detained at Imus, Cavite. However, he alleged that he was only forced
to sign it as he could no longer endure the torture inflicted on him by the PC
soldiers.

For his part, Balanguit testified that when the crime was
committed, he was in his hometown at Laoang, Samar. He also claimed that during his detention at the provincial jail
in Trece Martires City, he was forced to sign a document written in Tagalog, a
dialect he was not fully conversant with.

On March 28, 1988, the trial court promulgated its decision
finding both Robiego and Balanguit guilty of the crime as charged.

Robiego and Balanguit interposed the instant appeal.

Balanguit specifically assails the trial court’s ruling that
appellants were guilty of Robbery in band with Homicide when only three persons
allegedly participated in its commission. He also criticizes the trial court for giving credence to the lone
prosecution witness, a mere elementary school graduate, who “succumbed to
the suggestion given by the letter of Capt. Marcos Gotico that the persons who
robbed their canteen and shot her husband were those apprehended by the
Marikina Police in a similar robbery-hold-up” (Brief for Balanguit, p. 12;
Rollo, p. 88).

The resolution of this case depends upon the credibility of the
sole witness. Since this Court did not
have the opportunity to see such witness testify and therefore gauge her
credibility while on the stand, the general rule that the findings of the trial
court on credibility should be given much weight must be applied (People v.
Atilano, 204 SCRA 278 [1991]; People v. Lardizabal, 204 SCRA 320 [1991]).

While there are exceptions to the general rule, none exists in
this case. Moreover, there is no
evidence to indicate that the lone prosecution eyewitness, Lourdes de los
Santos, had any motive to falsely testify against appellants (People v.
Belibet, 199 SCRA 587 [1991]).

Lourdes had a good look at the two appellants as she was only
about half a meter away from them when they entered her house. There was sufficient light for her to see
their faces clearly. As this Court has
time and again held, where conditions of visibility are favorable and the
witness did not appear to be biased against the accused, her assertions as to
the identity of the malefactors should normally be accepted. This is more so when the victim is the
witness herself because a victim usually strives to remember the faces of the
malefactors (People v. Lacao, Sr., 201 SCRA 317 [1991]).

Balanguit points out that while on the witness stand, Lourdes
categorically pointed at him as the one who shot Limbo, but in her sworn
statement of January 29, 1985, she failed to identify the person who actually
fired the shot. This alleged
inconsistency, however, is more apparent than real. While at the stand she categorically pointed at Balanguit as the
one who shot Limbo, but in her sworn statement she said that she was not
looking when all of a sudden someone shot her husband (“Noong nakalingat
ako bigla na lang may bumaril sa asawa ko”). However, in the same sworn statement, Lourdes said that she was
sure Robiego and Balanguit were the ones who entered the canteen (“ang
natitiyak ko lang po ay itong dalawang iyan ang siyang pumasok sa
loob”). Under this circumstance,
anyone of the two could have been the killer. The conclusion that Balanguit, not Robiego, was the one who fired his
gun may be deduced from their positions vis-a-vis the victim and their actions
immediately after the shooting. Besides, minor inconsistencies do not reflect on a witness’ credibility
as long as the testimony manifests a ring of truth (People v. Arbolante, 203
SCRA 85 [1991]).

What should concern the Court in this case is whether or not
Lourdes had positively identified the accused. There is no doubt that she did. She remained unflinching even on cross-examination in pointing at
appellants as the intruders who killed her common-law-husband. In the face of her positive identification
of the appellants as the culprits, their respective alibis dwindle into
nothingness (People v. Arroyo, 201 SCRA 616 [1991]). This defense suffers from an inherent infirmity because it is
easy to fabricate (People v. Bugho, 202 SCRA 164 [1991]).

Another aspect which erodes appellants’ attack on Lourdes’
testimony as to who killed Limbo is the fact that conspiracy had been proven
beyond reasonable doubt in this case. This is shown by the evidence that both appellants were armed with
handguns when they entered the house at an ungodly hour and announced the hold
up, while the third member of the group acted as a look-out. They helped each other pick up the scattered
money bills and they fled the scene of the crime together. Even assuming that Lourdes mistook Balanguit
as the one who fired the fatal shot at Limbo, Balanguit cannot escape
culpability. In conspiracy, the act of
one is the act of all and therefore, a showing as to who actually killed the
victim is not required (People v. Alvarez, 169 SCRA 730 [1989]).

Appellants’ denials that they perpetrated the crime were
correctly disregarded by the trial court. Being unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, not to mention
that they are negative in character, such denials are self-serving which deserve
no evidentiary weight unlike the testimony of the sole eyewitness who testified
on affirmative matters (People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 [1991]).

The trial court, however, incorrectly characterized the crime as
Robbery in band with Homicide. It has
not been indubitably shown by the prosecution that more than three persons
perpetrated the crime. Under Article
14(6) of the Revised Penal Code, a crime is deemed committed by a band
(“cuadrilla”) when more than three armed malefactors acted together in
the commission of the offense. In this
case, Lourdes only mentioned three culprits, namely: Galanza, Robiego and Balanguit.

The crime committed is therefore the special complex crime of
Robbery with Homicide under Art. 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. All the elements of the crime of robbery,
namely, intent to gain, unlawful taking of personal property belonging to
another and violence against or intimidation of a person (Art. 293, Revised
Penal Code) have been duly proven in this case. There is no doubt that the appellants’ intention was to rob Limbo
as they even informed him that it was a hold up. In the course of the robbery, however, they shot and killed
him. As there was a direct relation and
intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide was
committed (People v. Ponciano, 204 SCRA 627 [1991]).

Robbery with Homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Inasmuch as there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances
proven in the commission of the crime, the lower court correctly imposed the
lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua (Article 63(2) Revised Penal Code).

In line with recent jurisprudence (People v. Callao, 206 SCRA 420
[1992]), the indemnity imposed by the trial court for the death of Dominador
Limbo in the amount of P30,000.00 should be increased to P50,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED,
with the modifications that: (1) the
crime committed be designated as Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of
the Revised Penal Code; and (2) the indemnity to the heirs of the victim be
increased to P50,000.00. Costs de
oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.