G.R. No. 172869 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DONATO BULASAG Y ARELLANO ALIAS "DONG".D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered , the Court finds the accused Donato Bulasag y Arellano alias "Dong" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide as defined and penalized under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act [No.] 7659, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of reclusion perpetua , with the accessory penalties and to pay the costs. He is also hereby ordered to pay the heirs of Estelita Bascuguin y Besas the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as indemnity in line with current jurisprudence. IT IS SO ORDERED . [12] Appellant filed a notice of appeal. On January 13, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the trial court. It observed that all the elements of the crime of robbery with homicide were present in the case. It noted that appellant's identity was duly established by Michael's positive identification, hence it disregarded appellant's denial and alibi. Dissatisfied, appellant appealed to this Court. As appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General opted not to submit supplemental briefs, we shall now review the decision of the Court of Appeals, focusing on the following issues brought before it: I. THE TRIAL COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. II. THE TRIAL COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING SCANT CONSIDERATION TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S ALIBI. III. THE TRIAL COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAD ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS THE AUTHOR OF THE CRIME CHARGED. [13] Briefly stated, the principal issue is whether the guilt of appellant was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Subsidiarily, for our resolution are: (1) Did the prosecution sufficiently prove appellant's identity as the author of the crime? (2) Did the trial court err in disregarding appellant's denial and alibi? Appellant contends that his identity was proven only by circumstantial evidence. Michael did not see the face of the man who chased him and shot his mother because the man wore a bonnet over his face. Thus, there was doubt whether the man was really appellant or somebody else. While Michael testified that he recognized appellant's voice, physical features and gun, he also admitted that he did not talk often with him. There was doubt therefore whether he was in a position to identify appellant's voice during the incident. Appellant insists that he was so drunk at the time of the incident that it was impossible for him to commit the crime. He contends that his wife corroborated his testimony. Appellee counters that appellant's identity was sufficiently established. Although appellant wore a bonnet over his face, Michael was able to identify his voice, physical features and the gun used. Michael was familiar with appellant's v