G.R. No. 106099 July 8, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGUSTIN SOTTO, RADEL MONTECILLO and ALEX MONTECILLO, accused. AGUSTIN SOTTO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Agustin Sotto, together with Radel and Alex Montecillo, were charged with the crime of highway robbery with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. The information alleged that on May 2, 1989, in Sogod, Cebu, the accused, conspiring and armed with a paltik revolver and a knife, by means of violence and intimidation, took cash and a wristwatch from Nida Sultones. On the occasion of the robbery, and for the purpose of enabling the accused to carry away the items, they treacherously shot and killed Maximo Monilar, Jr., Nida’s 12-year-old brother. All accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the trial court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Radel and Alex Montecillo accepted the verdict, while Agustin Sotto appealed.
The prosecution evidence, primarily from victim Nida Sultones, established that at around 5:30 A.M. on May 2, 1989, she and her brother Maximo were walking to the poblacion. Radel Montecillo followed them, then suddenly grabbed and strangled Nida, taking her wristwatch and P1,900.00. Alex Montecillo emerged to help subdue Nida. Maximo tried to help his sister by hitting Radel. A masked man then appeared, shot and killed Maximo as he ran away. Nida recognized the masked man as appellant Agustin Sotto based on his physique, height, and general appearance. The Montecillo brothers then dragged Nida to a creek, threatened her with a knife and a gun, but released her after she promised not to report the incident. She nevertheless reported it to the police, who arrested the Montecillo brothers that same morning. A search of their persons yielded over P600.00 each from their underwear.
Based on information from Radel implicating Sotto, police, accompanied by Barangay Captain Obdulio Bregente, searched Sotto’s house on May 3, 1989. Appellant consented to the search. A .38 caliber revolver was found hidden in the double walling of his bedroom. Bregente testified he heard Sotto explain the gun was in his house for repair. Sotto was detained. While in his cell, a wristwatch was thrown from his window, which Nida later identified as the one stolen from her. Forensic analysis showed the gun was positive for gunpowder residues. A paraffin test on Sotto yielded positive for gunpowder residues on his left hand. Nida identified the gun in court as the one used by the masked man.
Appellant denied involvement, presenting an alibi that he was at his house tending his store. He claimed the gun was planted, the search was forced and without a warrant, and the watch was a fabrication. He suggested the paraffin test results were interchanged with those of the Montecillo brothers (who tested negative) and alleged a grudge from the police station commander. Radel Montecillo, testifying for the defense, claimed he was merely jogging, heard a gunshot, saw Maximo fall, and then saw Sotto (unmasked) who also shot at him, missing. Radel surmised Sotto was angry at him for refusing to help in a case.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Agustin Sotto of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment in toto. The Court found no merit in appellant’s arguments. The positive identification by Nida Sultones, who recognized appellant despite the mask based on his physique and appearance, was credible and prevailed over his denial and alibi. The testimonies of Nida and Radel were not irreconcilably conflicting on the minor detail of the mask, as the mask could have been removed after the shooting. The discovery of the gun in appellant’s house was admissible as it was found during a valid consented search, witnessed by a barangay official. Appellant’s claim of coercion was not credible, and his subsequent explanation about the gun being for repair was an admission of possession. The recovery of the stolen wristwatch from his cell, and the positive paraffin test on his left hand, further corroborated his participation. Conspiracy among the accused was established by their coordinated actions. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over positive identification. The totality of the evidence proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of robbery with homicide.