G.R. No. 142870 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DINDO PAJOTAL Y FETALCORIN; RANDY GABAY (AT LARGE) AND LINDO GABAY (AT LARGE), ACCUSED.DINDO PAJOTAL Y FETALCORIN, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: "(a) The court finds accused Dindo Pajotal y Fetalcorin GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide punishable under Article 294 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659 with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH to be executed in accordance with existing law. In accordance with the provisions of Section 10, Rule 122 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Mariano S. Familara III is hereby directed to forward within twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen (15) days after promulgation of judgment or notice of denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration the complete records of the case to the Honorable Supreme Court for review; "(b) Accused Dindo Pajotal is also ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Winefred Espina the sum of P50,000.00 as compensatory damages for the loss of life of the victim, the sum of P26,000.00 as actual damages and P500,000.00 as lost earnings; "(c) With respect to accused Randy Gabay alias Randy Montesa and Lindo Gabay who are still at large, let an alias warrant of arrest be issued against them in order that they could be brought to court for trial." [12] Hence this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that: "I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEIR GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. "II. GRANTING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ARE (SIC) GUILTY, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THEM FOR ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE SINCE THE CRIMES COMMITTED ARE ONLY THE TWO SEPARATE CRIMES OF SIMPLE ROBBERY AND HOMICIDE WHICH WILL ENTITLE THEM TO THE IMPOSITION OF A LESSER PENALTY FOR EACH OF THE TWO FELONIES CORRESPONDINGLY." [13] We find the appeal to be without merit. First. Accused-appellant contends that the State failed to prove his guilt by strong and overwhelming evidence. While admitting that alibi per se is a weak defense, accused-appellant nevertheless contends that alibi can constitute a valid and plausible defense if, in the commission of the crime, there are no other witnesses except the parties involved. In this case, accused-appellant insists no other witness was presented to corroborate Arnold Bugayon's testimony. [14] Accused-appellant's contention is untenable. Accused-appellant does not explain why the testimony of the lone eyewitness Arnold Bugayon is insufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Nor does he give specific instances from the records of this case to bolster his claim of innocence. Contrary to accused-appellant's claim, the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that Arnold Bugayon was the only eyewitness does not diminish the force and weight of his testimony. A doctrine of long standing in this jurisdiction is that the testimo