FACTS:

Appellant Pedro Tumulak, along with his co-accused Paulino Buayaban and Larry Betache, were accused of committing robbery in band with homicide. On January 2, 1990, the accused, along with two other individuals, entered the house of Dioscoro Abonales and proceeded to commit the crime. Pedro and Paulino threatened the victims with their guns, while the other two individuals went to Dioscoro's room. After a confrontation, Dioscoro was shot and killed. Pedro then went to the kitchen and demanded money from Dioscoro's wife. They forcibly took P30,000, which was the family's capital, and Rolando Verdida's wallet containing P10,000 for his wedding. The perpetrators fled the scene but encountered Artemio Abonales, Dioscoro's father, whom they failed to shoot. Rolando and Elizabeth, the victims, reported the crime, leading to the arrest of the accused. Pedro invoked alibi and denial as his defense.

During the trial, the prosecution presented eyewitness testimonies from Rolando Verdida, Josefa Abonales, and Artemio Abonales, who positively identified the appellant and his companions as the perpetrators of the crime. According to their testimonies, the appellant and his co-accused entered Dioscoro's house, killed him, and forcibly took money from his wife. They also took a wallet containing money prepared by Rolando for his wedding. Their attempt to shoot Artemio failed. The trial court, after considering the evidence, rejected the defense of alibi and found the appellant and his co-accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the judge who wrote the decision was not the one who observed the witnesses' testimonies, suggesting a lack of accuracy in determining their credibility. However, the Court disagreed, stating that the fact that a different judge wrote the decision does not automatically invalidate the findings of fact by the trial court. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were deemed credible and sufficient to establish the appellant's participation in the crime.

In addition to the prosecution witnesses, Artemio Abonales also testified, providing details about the incident. He claimed to have seen the appellant, together with three other men and a woman, passing by his house carrying sacks and bundles. He recognized the appellant as his neighbor and saw them enter the houses of Juanito Cabañero and Marlon Luceño. Later that night, he learned about the robbery at Marlon's house and immediately reported what he witnessed to the authorities.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the testimony of Artemio Abonales is credible despite alleged defects in his eyesight and inconsistencies in his testimony.

2. Whether the testimony of Larry Betache should be given weight due to his status as a "good boy" according to a DSWD report.

3. Whether the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses affect their credibility.

4. Whether Rolando Verdida could have identified the accused and witnessed the incident despite lying face down on the floor.

5. Whether Josefa Abonales' knowledge of the accused affects her credibility.

6. Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of band can be appreciated in the commission of the crime, despite not being alleged in the information.

7. Whether or not the penalties imposed are correct.

8. Whether or not the award of damages is appropriate.

RULING:

1. The testimony of Artemio Abonales is credible and should be given weight. The fact that defense witness Larry Betache gave a different version does not diminish Artemio's testimony, as the positive identification of the appellant and his companions was also made by other witnesses whose testimonies were straightforward and categorical. Artemio's credibility is further bolstered by his clear vision, knowledge of the accused since childhood, and his ability to recognize them during the encounter.

2. The claim that Larry Betache's testimony is credible because he was a "good boy" according to a DSWD report is without merit. Betache's status and the report do not automatically make his testimony credible. His testimony should be approached with caution, as he is a defense witness and a youthful offender entitled to a suspended sentence, thus having nothing to lose by freeing the appellant from criminal responsibility. Moreover, his testimony is outweighed by the positive identification given by other witnesses.

3. Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not detract from their credibility. On the contrary, they serve to strengthen their credibility as they erase the suspicion of rehearsed testimony.

4. Even if Rolando Verdida was made to lie face down on the floor, he was still able to witness the incident due to the small size of the house, lack of obstruction, and good illumination from three lamps. His ability to see what was going on during the incident is supported by his testimony.

5. The argument that Josefa Abonales did not really know the accused because she only got to know their names from her father-in-law is rejected. Her knowledge of their names does not necessarily affect her ability to identify them and recount what transpired during the incident.

6. The ordinary aggravating circumstance of band cannot be appreciated in the commission of the crime because it was not alleged in the information. The failure to comply with the requirement in the Rules of Criminal Procedure means that generic aggravating circumstances, although proven at trial, cannot be appreciated against the accused if such circumstances are not stated in the information.

7. The penalty of reclusion perpetua is the proper penalty for the crime of robbery with homicide, but since there was no appreciable aggravating circumstance, reclusion perpetua is the correct penalty.

8. The award of damages is affirmed with the following modifications: the grant of exemplary damages is deleted due to the lack of any aggravating circumstance, and the amount of moral damages is increased from P20,000 to P50,000. Tempered damages in the amount of P25,000 are also awarded, in addition to the damages already awarded by the trial court.

PRINCIPLES:

• Positive identification by credible witnesses is enough to establish the guilt of the accused.

• Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not diminish their credibility; they may even strengthen it.

• Testimony of a defense witness should be approached with caution, considering their motives and potential bias.

• Witnesses' ability to identify and recount events is not solely dependent on their physical position or familiarity with the accused.

• The testimony of a witness, when clear and positive, who had no reason to falsely implicate the accused, is strong evidence of guilt.

• The defense of alibi must prove not only that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

• Conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the perpetrators before, during, and after the crime, which indicate a common design, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments.

• When conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all.

• The failure to allege specific aggravating circumstances, even if proven at trial, cannot be appreciated against the accused if such circumstances are not stated in the information.

• Penalties imposed should be in accordance with the law and should be based on the presence or absence of aggravating circumstances.

• Exemplary damages can only be awarded in criminal actions if the crime was committed with aggravating circumstances.

• When no documentary evidence of actual damages is presented, temperate damages may be awarded where it is reasonable to presume the family of the victim incurred expenses for his wake and funeral.