G.R. No. 94310 June 30, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIRGILIO ALAY-AY, ALIAS “COT,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

On March 22, 1985, around 5:30 AM, Felomena Franche was tending her store in Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Her grandson, Saldy Guela, heard a woman shout that someone was hitting Felomena. He looked out the window and saw a man inside the store hitting Felomena’s head with a piece of wood. As the man was leaving, Saldy recognized him as “Cot” (Virgilio Alay-ay), who frequented the store. Another witness, Dolores Lising, went to the store to buy sugar, heard pounding and moaning, and saw a man beating the old woman. She ran to alert Felomena’s daughter, Mila Pineda. A third witness, Natividad de la Cruz, saw appellant jump over the store’s fence carrying a Sanyo transistor radio she recognized as Felomena’s. Mila Pineda and others revived Felomena and took her to the hospital. En route, Mila asked her mother who hit her, and Felomena answered, “It was Cot.” Felomena died that morning from multiple head injuries caused by being beaten with a piece of wood. Appellant was charged with Robbery with Homicide. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Appellant denied the accusation, claiming he was asleep at the time, and assailed the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of Robbery with Homicide based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s guilt but modified the conviction. It found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and consistent, establishing that appellant killed Felomena Franche and stole her transistor radio. However, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove that the killing was by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The evidence showed the killing preceded the taking of the radio; the force employed was for the killing, not to facilitate the theft. Therefore, the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide was not committed. Instead, appellant committed two separate crimes: Homicide and Theft. The Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and entered a new one finding appellant guilty of Homicide and Theft. For Homicide, he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of Six Years and One Day of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to Fourteen Years, Eight Months and One Day of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos. For Theft, he was sentenced to a straight penalty of Six Months of Arresto Mayor maximum, and to return the stolen radio and cash, or pay their value.