G.R. No.

181635               November 15, 2010 That on or about February 3, 1997, in the Municipality of Kidapawan, Province of
Cotabato, Philippines, the said accused, in company with JOHN DOE and PETER
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
DOE, whose identities are still unknown and at large, armed with handgun and
vs.
knife, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to
NONOY EBET, Appellant.
gain by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there, willfully and
DECISION forcibly get, rob and carry away, one (1) wrist watch worth ONE HUNDRED
TWENTY-FIVE PESOS (₱125.00); one (1) school bag worth ONE HUNDRED THIRTY
PERALTA, J.: PESOS (₱130.00); and cash amounting to THIRTY PESOS (₱30.00), with the total
Before this Court is the appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in amount of TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE PESOS (₱285.00), Philippine Currency,
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00257, dated July 31, 2007, which sustained the judgment2 of owned by JOAN PARCASIO, to the damage and prejudice of JOAN PARCASIO.
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 86-97 dated October 12, 1999, That on the same occasion, above-named accused with intent to kill, willfully,
finding appellant Nonoy Ebet guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab, shot and use physical violence to
Robbery with Homicide. the person of GABRIEL PARCASIO, JR., thus inflicting upon the latter multiple stab
The facts, as shown in the records, are the following: wounds in the different parts of his body, which caused his death thereafter.

On February 3, 1997, around 7:30 p.m., three (3) men entered the house of the CONTRARY TO LAW.
spouses Gabriel Parcasio and Evelyn Parcasio. Of the three men, Evelyn When arraigned4 on September 17, 1997, appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded
recognized one of them to be appellant Ebet, having been a constant visitor of not guilty to the crime charged against him.
her husband. Upon entering, one of the unidentified men poked a gun at Evelyn,
while another unidentified man wielding a knife, held Evelyn's daughter, Joan. At Consequently, the trial on the merits ensued.
that moment, Evelyn saw appellant holding a knife and standing at the door of
The prosecution presented the testimonies of Evelyn Parcasio and Joan Parcasio,
the house. The men asked Evelyn where her husband was hiding and compelled
testifying as to the facts narrated earlier.
her to lead them to the house's underground. After the two unidentified men
reached the underground, Evelyn heard her husband shout for her and her For his defense, appellant presented his own testimony, as well as those of
daughters to run, which the latter did. Thereafter, a gunshot was heard, as well as Virgilio Balili, Fernando Saud and Feliciano Jordan. Based on their testimonies, the
a commotion underground. Joan, after hearing the gunshot, returned to the following transpired:
house fearing that her mother was shot. It was then that the men accosted her
On February 3, 1997, appellant was in the house of Agri Saud, which was 200
and asked for her money. With no money to give, the men took her bag worth
meters away from the house of Gabriel and Evelyn Parcasio. Appellant was in the
One Hundred Thirty Pesos (₱130.00), a wrist watch worth One Hundred Twenty-
said house from 5:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. He was there butchering a pig, together
Five Pesos (₱125.00) and Thirty Pesos (₱30.00) cash, the total of which is Two
with Agri Saud, Efren Leon, Willy Estigoy and Feliciano Jordan. Appellant claimed
Hundred Eighty-Five Pesos (₱285.00). When the men left the premises, Evelyn
that he never left the house or the group from the time he arrived at Agri Saud's
went back to their house and saw her husband bleeding to death due to multiple
house until they dispersed later in the evening.
stab wounds. The husband eventually died due to the said stab wounds.
The trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Thus, an Information3 dated July 10, 1997 was filed, charging appellant with the
Robbery with Homicide. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
crime of Robbery with Homicide, which reads:
WHEREFORE, prescinding from the foregoing facts and considerations, the Court THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
finds accused Nonoy Ebet guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct PROSECUTION WITNESS.
participation of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, hereby sentenced him to
II.
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is hereby ordered to indemnify the
heirs of Gabriel Parcasio the sum of ₱50,000.00. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING ANY PROBATIVE VALUE TO THE DFENSE
OF ALIBI BY THE ACCUSED.
With costs de officio.
According to appellant, the prosecution witnesses failed to positively identify him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.5
He also argues that the trial court, in rejecting the defense of alibi, simply
A Notice of Appeal6 was filed and this Court accepted the appeal. However, in a adopted the general principle of alibi as a defense, being inherently weak, but
Resolution7 dated September 15, 2004, this Court transferred the case to the CA, failed to point out any inconsistencies and falsities to his testimony, as well as
in conformity with People of the Philippines v. Efren Mateo y Garcia,8 modifying those of the other witnesses for the defense.
the pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, more
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in its Brief, 11 argued
particularly Sections 3 and 10 of Rule 122, Section 13 of Rule 124, Section 3 of
the following:
Rule 125 and any other rule insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the
RTCs to this Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion I
perpetua or life imprisonment, as well as the resolution of this Court’s en banc,
dated September 19, 1995, in Internal Rules of the Supreme Court in cases THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY GAVE FULL CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION
similarly involving the death penalty, pursuant to the Court's power to EVIDENCE.
promulgate rules of procedure in all courts under Section 5, Article VIII of the II
Constitution, and allowing an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals before
such cases are elevated to this Court. IN THE LIGHT OF THE POSITIVE AND UNERRING IDENTIFICATION OF APPELLANT
BY THE PROSECUTION WITNESS, THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY REJECTED HIS
On July 31, 2007, the CA affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court. DEFENSE OF DENIAL AND ALIBI.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
The OSG insists that the prosecution witnesses positively and categorically
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that recognized and identified appellant as one of the perpetrators; thus, the trial
appellant shall pay ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, court correctly appreciated the evidence presented by the prosecution. It further
₱25,000.00 as temperate damages and to return the wrist watch, school bag and posits that appellant's defense of denial and alibi was correctly rejected by the
₱30.00 in cash or pay its reasonable value in the total amount of P285.00 in case trial court, because those defenses cannot prevail over the positive identification
restitution is not feasible, to the heirs of the victim. of appellant.
SO ORDERED.9 With both arguments from the parties under consideration, this Court finds the
Hence, the present appeal. appeal unmeritorious.

In his Brief,10 appellant assigned the following errors: In People v. De Jesus,12 this Court had the occasion to meticulously expound on
the nature of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, thus:
I
Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides: robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide.
The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons – Penalties. -
murder, parricide, and infanticide.
Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or any person shall
suffer: Intent to rob is an internal act but may be inferred from proof of violent unlawful
taking of personal property. When the fact of asportation has been established
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the
beyond reasonable doubt, conviction of the accused is justified even if the
robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery
property subject of the robbery is not presented in court. After all, the property
shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
stolen may have been abandoned or thrown away and destroyed by the robber
For the accused to be convicted of the said crime, the prosecution is burdened to or recovered by the owner. The prosecution is not burdened to prove the actual
prove the confluence of the following elements: value of the property stolen or amount stolen from the victim. Whether the
robber knew the actual amount in the possession of the victim is of no moment
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation because the motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount or value
against persons; involved.
(2) the property taken belongs to another; When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those
(3) the taking is animo lucrandi; and who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals
of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they did not
(4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed. actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to prevent the same.
commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of
robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. the robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide. All
The homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the those who conspire to commit robbery with homicide are guilty as principals of
result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes such crime, although not all profited and gained from the robbery. One who joins
or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can
taken into consideration. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized.
through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive elements of
the crime, namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated. Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery
if, for instance, it was committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the
It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or that the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent
victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the
persons are killed or that aside from the homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the
usurpation of authority, is committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the
Likewise immaterial is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers; robbery.13
the felony would still be robbery with homicide. Once a homicide is committed by
or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is robbery with
homicide. All the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the
The trial court, in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime A Yes, sir.
of robbery with homicide, gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
Q Can you go down and pinpoint him?
witnesses. As it explained:
A Witness taps the shoulder of a person who, when asked his name, he
The court finds the testimonies of Evelyn and Joan Parcasio as truthworthy,
answered that he is Nonoy Ebet.
honest and straightforward. It is significant to note that the prosecution's
testimonies have not been assailed. No motive was advanced by the defense why Q How do you know him to be Nonoy Ebet?
the witnesses will falsely testify and implicate the herein accused in the
commission of such a heinous crime. Thus, it has been ruled by the Supreme A He is always in our house. He is always eating with my husband in our house.
Court "that when there is no evidence indicating that the principal witness for the Q You said these three (3) entered your house?
prosecution was moved by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not
so moved, and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. Denial, like alibi is A Yes, sir.
inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and credible Q What happened after that?
testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime.
(People vs. Belibet, 194 SCRA 588). A Upon entering the house, he poked a gun on me and one of them pointed a
knife to my daughter Joan.
Moreover, circumstantial evidence have been duly established in the case at bar
which is in conformity with the rules of court. That accused Nonoy Ebet in the Q What about this Nonoy Ebet?
company [of] two (2) unidentified persons entered the house of Gabriel Parcasio,
A Nonoy Ebet was standing in front of the door of my house holding the knife. 15
once inside took [the] personal properties of Joan, daughter of Gabriel, and
thereafter the accused took turns in stabbing Gabriel Parcasio to death.14 Testimony of Joan Parcasio:

Appellant's main contention is that the trial court was wrong in giving credence to Q Now, on that evening at around 7:00 o'clock of February 3, 1997, can you recall
the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses. According to him, he was not whether there was an unusual incident that happened?
positively identified by the said witnesses. However, this Court finds otherwise.
A Yes, sir.
The following are the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution which
Q Can you recall what was that unusual incident that happened?
clearly show that the appellant was categorically identified as one of the men
who took part in the perpetration of the crime: A We were robbed and my father was killed.
Testimony of Evelyn Parcasio: Q What is the name of your father?
Q Now, in that evening of February 3, 1997, was there any unusual incident that A Gabriel Parcasio, Jr.
happened in your house?
Q You said you were held up, how many persons robbed you?
A At more or less 7:30, three (3) persons entered our house. The two (2) of them I
A Three (3) persons.
do not know, only one (1) I know.
Q Were you able to identify them?
Q Who is that one (1) you know?
A Only one perpetrator I know. and Joan Parcasio. When Balili asked if they knew the identities of the
perpetrators, Evelyn, Jean and Joan answered in the negative, thus:
Q You said you were able to identify one of the perpetrators, if this one which you
were able to identify is inside this courtroom, please point at him? Q When Evelyn, Jean and Joan Parcasio approached you, what did you do?

A Witness tapped the shoulder of a person with a stripe polo shirt and who, A I asked them if they were able to identify the perpetrators.
when asked his name, answered Nonoy Ebet.
Q And what did they tell you?
Q This Nonoy Ebet is one of those who robbed you and likewise killed your
A They answered me that they did not know the assailant.18
father?
xxxx
A Yes, sir.
Q You said on the way you had a conversation with Evelyn, Jean and Joan
Q What was the weapon used in killing your father?
Parcasio, please tell us what the content of your conversation? What was the
A Hunting knife. 16 subject matter of your conversation?

According to appellant, the testimony of Joan Parcasio during the trial was A I asked them to tell the truth so that we could help them.
contrary to her earlier statement with the police authorities of Kidapawan City,
Q So what was the answer?
Cotabato. The police blotter17 contains the following:
A They answered, "What could we do because we were not able to identify those
Entry/Date/Time
people?"19
15-02/03-97/2000H
The above argument of appellant deserves scant consideration. The incomplete
-JOAN PARCASIO, 18 years old, student resident of Barangay Upper Manongol, entry in the police blotter must not overcome the positive and categorical
Kidapawan, Cotabato reported this station and requested to put on record, that identification of appellant as one of the perpetrators. As correctly pointed out by
they were allegedly and forcibly entered by three unidentified men while the one the OSG:
is wearing mask and declared hold-up. His father GABRIEL PARCASIO, 44 years
The entry in the police blotter was incomplete. In fact, as stated therein, the case
old, a farmer attempted to resist, but the assailant shot him once, by an
was referred to the investigation section for proper disposition. It must be noted
undetermined type of hand-gun and stabbed him for several times, hitting the
that Item No. 2 was entered at 2000 hours or 8 in the evening or about thirty (30)
different parts of his body. The neighbor of the victim, wife and child, brought
minutes after the incident. The culprits, including the appellant, were still on the
him to Kidapawan Medical Specialist, but he was expired upon arrival at the said
loose. This explains the reason why Joan, still distraught over the sudden and
hospital. Money carting them away by the perpetrators amounting to ₱30.00
unexpected death of her father, hesitated to divulge the identity of appellant as
Philippine currency and one wrist watch amounting to ₱1,000.00. Incident
one of the perpetrators of the gory killing of her father.20
happened at about 7:00 p.m., February 3, 1997. Case referred to investigation
section for proper disposition. In People v. Sabadao,21 the appellants therein faulted two (2) prosecution
witnesses for, either giving incomplete statements or not giving any statement to
Appellant points out that the above contents of the police blotter are
the police authorities. However, this Court was not persuaded and ruled that:
corroborated by the testimony of his own witness, Virgilio Balili, who narrated
that right after the commission of the crime, he was approached by Evelyn, Jean
x x x It is a matter of judicial experience that an affidavit, being taken ex parte, is 02. Q – Why are you here in the Office of the Investigation Section?
almost always incomplete and often inaccurate. To be sure, a sworn statement
A – To give my voluntary statement in connection to the complaint of my mother
taken ex parte is generally considered to be inferior to a testimony given in open
Evelyn Parcasio to persons of alias NONOY EBET and his two other companions
court as the latter is subject to the test of cross examination.22
which I could not identify.
Notwithstanding the entry in the police blotter, Evelyn and Joan Parcasio, on the
03. Q – What is the complaint of your mother against these persons?
day after the crime was committed, executed their respective sworn statements,
positively identifying the appellant as one of the culprits. Thus: A – For robbing us and killing my father Gabriel Parcasio, Jr.
Evelyn Parcasio's Sworn Statement: xxxx
02. Q – Why are you here in the Office of the Investigation Section? 19. Q – You mentioned in your statement that you were able to identify one of
the perpetrators as one NONOY EBET. How were you able to identify him?
A – To file a formal complaint against the persons who robbed us and killed my
husband. A – Because while one of his companions was holding me at the point of a knife, I
saw Alias Nonoy Ebet standing in front of our door.
03. Q – What is the name of your husband who was killed by the robbers?
20. Q – How far was he from you?
A – Gabriel Parcasio Jr., sir.
A – More or less one meter.
04. Q – When and where did this incident happen?
21. Q – Was there light at the house during that time?
A. - It happened on February 3, 1997 at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening inside
our residence at Brgy. Upper Manongol, Kidapawan, Cotabato. A – Yes, sir.
05. Q – You mentioned that you were held-up? How many are they? 22. Q – Do you know the person of Alias Nonoy Ebet?
A – They were three (3) of them. A – Yes, sir. He used to go to the house and talk with my father and sometimes
we served coffee to him as merienda.24
06. Q – Can you recognize or identify them?
Clearly, it is only the incomplete police blotter that appears to be inconsistent.
A – I could only identify one of them in the person of alias NONOY EBET.
However, the said inconsistency has been cured by the sworn statements and the
xxxx testimonies given in open court. With that in perspective, this Court, therefore,
has no reason to dispute the trial court's appreciation of the credibility of the
16. Q – You mentioned that you could only identify one of the perpetrators as
prosecution witnesses' testimonies. Deeply entrenched in our jurisprudence is the
one alias Nonoy Ebet. How come that you were able to identify him?
rule that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the
A - Because he is always at our house conversing with my husband and trial court judge, because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment
sometimes eat with us.23 and demeanor on the witness stand; a vantage point denied appellate courts -
and when his findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are
Joan Parcasio's sworn statement: generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.25
Appellant further reasons out that, if it were indeed him who was seen standing This Court has always upheld that alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses
near or in front of the Parcasio family's door, that fact alone cannot be the basis and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently
to consider him as one of the perpetrators of the crime. However, the said
and positively ascertained the identity of the accused. And it is only axiomatic
argument is inconsequential.1avvphi1
that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.31
When a homicide takes place by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the Decision dated July 31, 2007
those who took part shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with
of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00257, which sustained with
homicide whether they actually participated in the killing, unless there is proof
modification, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court finding appellant Nonoy
that there was an endeavor to prevent the killing.26 The records are bereft of any
Ebet guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, is
evidence to prove, or even remotely suggest, that appellant attempted to prevent
hereby AFFIRMED.
the killing. Therefore, the basic principle in conspiracy that the "act of one is the
act of all," applies in this case. To be a conspirator, one need not participate in SO ORDERED.
every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not
even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
conspiracy. Each conspirator may be assigned separate and different tasks which Associate Justice
may appear unrelated to one another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective WE CONCUR:
effort to achieve their common criminal objective.27 Once conspiracy is shown,
the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of ANTONIO T. CARPIO
participation of each of them becomes secondary,28 since all the conspirators are Associate Justice
principals. To exempt himself from criminal liability, a conspirator must have Chairperson
performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA ROBERTO A. ABAD
commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof.29 Associate Justice Associate Justice
As to the failure of the trial court in finding merit to the defense of denial and
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
alibi presented by appellant, this Court is in complete agreement.
Associate Justice
Appellant claims that he was butchering a pig at the house of Agri Saud located
ATTESTATION
at Barangay Perez, Kidapawan City from 5:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. of February 3,
1997. The said alibi has been supported by the testimonies of two witnesses. I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
However, appellant failed to prove that it was impossible for him to be physically consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
present at the place where the crime had taken place and when the crime was Court’s Division.
being committed. For alibi to prosper, it must strictly meet the requirements of
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
time and place. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else
Associate Justice
when the crime was committed, but it must also be demonstrated that it was
Second Division, Chairperson
physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at the time the
crime was committed.30