PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 

plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LARRY LAURENTE Y BEJASA, MELVIN DAGUDOG and RICHARD DISIPULO,
accused.

LARRY LAURENTE Y BEJASA, accused appellant.

 G.R. No. 116734 March 29, 1996

PONENTE: J DAVIDE, JR., 

FACTS;

 On February 14, 1994 in the Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila, larry laurente
mentioned helping each, conspired willfully, unlawfully rob Herminiano G. Artana of his
earnings along F. Concepcion St. Brgy. San Joaquin, Pasig, Metro Manila.

 The victim was strangled with a leather belt and hit him with a blunt instrument causing
him to sustain physical injuries which caused directly caused his death.

 On February 15, 1994, the two co-accused remained at large, on arraignment, Laurente
entered a plea of not guilty. On trial, there four (4) witnesses namely: (1) Spo1 Crispin
Pio, investigating officer (2) Myra Guinto, eyewitness (3) Felicitas Matematico, victim’s
daughter and (4) Dr. Emmanuel Arañas, medico-legal officer of PNP Crime laboratory,
who performed autopsy on victim.

 Pio asked the Guinto siblings in law and other bystanders and no information gained but
in conducting cursory investigation that sustained strangulation marked and wounds on
the face and head, then conducted crime scene search and found a brown wallet containing
an SSS (Social Security System) ID of Larry Laurente and a leather belt used for
strangling.

 Then Pio made an incident report and requested SS to secure complete record and a follow
up team formed to arrest him which was on February 15, 1994 then brought him to police
investigation after apprised of constitutional rights, accused verbally admitted the crime
and two (2) witnesses positively identified him as one of 3 persons they saw coming out
from taxicab

 On cross-examination, Pio clarified certain details regarding findings he also admitted that
although informed the accused was not represented by counsel and admission was not
reduced in writing.

 Myra Guinto testified that on 14 February 1994, at about 9:15 p.m., she’s selling
cigarettes near to the crime scene and saw people scrambling inside a yellow taxicab at
 stop position, then three men left the taxicab then saw boarded a jeepney towards Pasig,
and a fourth man approached and saw the driver dead and called the police. She identified
that Laurente is one of them,

 Dr. Emmanuel Arañas testified on the autopsy that the victim caused of death was
traumatic injuries of head, hematoma, contusion neck, subdural and subarachnoidal
hemorrhages.

 Laurente said that on 14th day of February 1994 he was in Consorcia St. San Joaquin,
Pasig with his friends they began driking at 3:30 pm and wake up until 4 am on his house.
On 15th day of February 1994 he lost his wallet in the wooden bed which contained an
SSS ID hen then presumed that those two individuals took the wallet and then had been a
shingle molder at Winning Enterprises for past three years, with offices in Taguig Rizal,
which he stayed 15th February 1994 from 6:00 am until 8:00 pm

 After returning from work, four (4) policemen waiting for him and arrested him without
warrant, and not uniformed and then bought him to police station for being a hold-upper.

 On 23 August 1994, the trial court promulgated the challenged decision which it was
found that Laurente is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of highway robbery with homicide
punishable by death unter President Decree No. 532 entitled Anti-Piracy and Anti-
Highway Roberry Law of 1974.

ISSUE:

Whether Laurente is guilty beyond reasonable under P.D.No. 532 or the Anti-Piracy and Anti-
Highway Roberry Law of 1974

HELD:

 For the imposition of death penalty, it is impossible as the only positive identification that
Guinto was possessing is the SSS ID and the alibi raised by the accused was rejected due
to lack of evidence supporting the claim

 Laurente’s contention that Myra did not see the three men is a scant consideration, as
established the place where Myra saw Laurente was well-lit due to lamp post and the
distance as only two (2) arms-length away and identified him by Myra, it was given
weight as it’s impossible she will falsely testify because she don’t have ill feelings
towards the accused.

 Laurente's next contention that Myra did not actually see him stab the victim must
likewise fail. The accused conspired to commit a crime is a direct proof that the act of
one is the act of all.

 Laurente's story on the alleged loss of his SSS ID card and found in taxicab is simply
unbelievable. The court found that statement of Laurente as not constant as claiming he
 was on work on February 14, 1994 and suddenly changed that he was absent and
convince that he was with this co-accused had a drinking session.

 The full accord is that the rule as alibi as the weakest of all defense as it is easy to
fabricate and difficult to disprove which will not pevail over positive identification of the
accused.

 So, for Proof of the commission of robbery, however, must be examined more closely.
The accused pleads that the prosecution failed to prove the element of robbery that even a
single evidence was shown by the prosecution the robbery, so it is not presumed that the
main purpose of killing was to rob, there must be sufficient evidence.

 There is an examination of proof as the victim’s daughter gave statement thru her
affidavit, she was only informed by someone that her father was robbed, and this will
only constitute the inadmissible hearsay as any knowledge to robbery

 On SPO1 Pio’s affidavit wherein pointed as the sole piece of evidence, it was mentioned
that belonging of the dead man was all intact except for the earning.

 The lone measure in which the judge considered is not sufficient as it was absent and thus
failed to show burden of proof and satisfy quantum of evidence of robbery in this case.
Thus, a conviction of robbery cannot be promulgated in total absence of an evidence.

 It is settled that to satisfy crime of robbery with homicide, it is needed that robbery is
conclusive so in absence of proof it will only be simple homicide or murder.

 The Court ruled that the crime committed is homicide under Article 249 of RPC with a
penalty of reclusion temporal and it will be medium period

RULING:

 WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of Branch 156 of the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig in Criminal Case No. 104785 is hereby modified as to the nature of the offense
committed. As modified, accused-appellant LARRY LAURENTE Y BEJASA is found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as co-principal by direct participation, of the crime of
Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, and
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, said accused-appellant LARRY LAURENTE
Y BEJASA is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from Ten (10)
years of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to Seventeen (17) years and Four (4)
months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. In all other respects, the appealed
decision is AFFIRMED.

Costs against the accused-appellant.