The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jimmy Marquez for robbery with homicide but modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua due to the absence of aggravating circumstances alleged in the information. The Court emphasized that positive identification by eyewitnesses outweighs the defense of alibi, especially when the alibi is supported only by testimonies of relatives and is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. This case underscores the importance of proper pleading of aggravating circumstances in criminal informations and reinforces the evidentiary weight given to positive eyewitness identification in Philippine courts.

Hold-Up Horror: Can Alibi Eclipse Eyewitness Account in a Robbery-Homicide Case?

This case revolves around the tragic events of September 22, 1995, in San Pablo City, where businessman Pampilo Aclan was killed during a robbery. Jimmy Marquez, along with several unidentified individuals, was accused of the crime. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses who positively identified Marquez as one of the perpetrators, while the defense relied on alibi and challenged the credibility of the eyewitness testimonies. At the heart of this legal battle is the question of whether the defense of alibi can outweigh the positive identification by eyewitnesses, and whether an aggravating circumstance, not specifically pleaded in the information, can justify the imposition of the death penalty. The trial court convicted Marquez of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to death, leading to this automatic review by the Supreme Court.

The prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimonies of Rizza Cervantes, the victim’s salesgirl, and Jerwin Aclan, the victim’s son, both of whom were present during the robbery. These witnesses positively identified Marquez as one of the armed men who blocked their tricycle, demanded the victim’s bag, and ultimately shot and killed Pampilo Aclan when he resisted. In contrast, Marquez presented an alibi, claiming he was in Taguig, Metro Manila, on the day of the crime, helping his brother with construction work and attending a barangay dispute settlement. Several witnesses corroborated Marquez’s alibi, asserting his presence at the barangay settlement. However, inconsistencies and questions about the credibility of these witnesses arose during cross-examination, particularly regarding their knowledge of the case and their interactions with Marquez’s brother.

In evaluating the evidence, the Supreme Court emphasized the principle that positive identification by credible witnesses generally prevails over the defense of alibi. The Court noted that both Rizza Cervantes and Jerwin Aclan had a clear view of the accused during the robbery and had positively identified him in a police line-up. The Court gave weight to the fact that the witnesses had no apparent motive to falsely accuse Marquez and that their testimonies were consistent and credible. Building on this principle, the Court distinguished the case from situations where mistaken identification is a genuine possibility, such as when perpetrators wear masks or when witnesses have limited opportunities to observe the crime.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the defense’s challenge to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, arguing that their relationship to the victim (employee and son) implied bias. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reiterating that the mere relationship to the victim does not automatically disqualify a witness or render their testimony unreliable. Indeed, the Court stated that a relative of the victim might be considered especially credible due to their natural interest in securing justice for their loved one. This approach contrasts with a presumption of bias, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of improper motive to undermine a witness’s credibility.

The defense also argued that the prosecution’s failure to present the tricycle driver, Jimmy Soriso, suggested that his testimony would be unfavorable to the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, noting that the prosecution is not obligated to present every possible witness, especially when the evidence already presented is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle underscores the importance of the quality of evidence over the quantity of witnesses and recognizes the prosecution’s prerogative to determine which witnesses are most essential to their case.

The Supreme Court then turned to the issue of the penalty imposed by the trial court. The trial court sentenced Marquez to death, considering the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a band of armed malefactors. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that this aggravating circumstance was not specifically alleged in the information filed against Marquez. Citing Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires the specification of qualifying and aggravating circumstances in the information, the Court held that it was improper to consider the unpleaded aggravating circumstance in determining the penalty.

“The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omission constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.” – Rule 110, §8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

This ruling is based on the principle that an accused person has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, including any aggravating circumstances that could increase their punishment. Therefore, the Supreme Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, the maximum penalty for robbery with homicide when no aggravating circumstances are properly proven. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules in criminal prosecutions and ensures that accused persons are afforded due process.

Regarding the monetary awards, the Court affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the victim’s death and P80,000.00 for burial and incidental expenses, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence and the parties’ stipulation. However, the Court reduced the amount for restitution of the stolen cash and jewelry from P2.5 million to P1 million, deeming the initial amount excessive given the factual circumstances of the case. Similarly, the Court reduced the moral damages awarded to the heirs from P250,000.00 to P50,000.00, finding the original amount disproportionate. The court then, however, awarded exemplary damages to the offended party pursuant to Art. 2230 of the Civil Code.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide, and whether the death penalty was properly imposed given the lack of specified aggravating circumstances in the information.
Why was the death penalty reduced to reclusion perpetua?	The death penalty was reduced because the aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed by a band was not alleged in the information, violating the accused’s right to be informed of all charges against him.
What weight did the Court give to the eyewitness testimonies?	The Court gave significant weight to the positive and categorical eyewitness identifications of the accused as one of the perpetrators, finding them more credible than the accused’s alibi.
Did the witnesses’ relationship to the victim affect their credibility?	No, the Court held that the witnesses’ relationship to the victim did not automatically make their testimonies biased or unreliable; in fact, it could make them more interested in seeing justice served.
What is the significance of Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure?	This rule requires that all qualifying and aggravating circumstances be specified in the information, ensuring the accused is fully informed of the charges and potential penalties against them.
What is the effect of a positive identification on a defense of alibi?	A positive identification by credible witnesses generally defeats the defense of alibi, especially when the alibi is not well-substantiated and the witnesses are certain in their identification.
What damages were awarded in this case?	The Court awarded P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, P80,000 for burial expenses, P25,000 for exemplary damages, and P1,000,000 as restitution for the stolen cash and jewelry.
What was the Court’s view on the prosecution not presenting the tricycle driver as a witness?	The Court found that the prosecution was not obligated to present every possible witness, especially since the existing evidence was already sufficient to prove the accused’s guilt.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of thoroughness in criminal investigations and adherence to procedural rules in prosecutions. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the weight given to eyewitness testimony and the necessity of properly pleading aggravating circumstances to justify enhanced penalties. It also highlights the challenges faced by defendants relying on alibi as a defense against positive identification.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JIMMY MARQUEZ Y BACAY, G.R. No. 136736, April 11, 2002