FACTS:

The accused-appellants, Dennis Legaspi and Emilio Franco, were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City for the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide in connection with the robbery-slay of Police Officer Carlos Deveza and the physical injuries inflicted on Wilfredo Dazo. The conviction was based on the collective testimony of the prosecution witnesses, including an eyewitness who saw Legaspi shoot Deveza.

The case involves the shooting incident of Carlos Deveza, where two accused-appellants, Legaspi and Franco, were charged with murder and frustrated murder. Witness Tulod witnessed the shooting and ran to inform the victim's brother, Junie Deveza. Another witness, Dazo, a tricycle driver, was waiting at a nearby corner and heard the gunshot. He saw Legaspi and Franco walking away from the scene after the shooting. Feeling pity for the victim, Dazo tried to apprehend Legaspi but mistakenly grabbed Franco. They wrestled for about thirty seconds, during which Legaspi shot at Dazo twice, hitting him on the right jaw. Dazo, after being treated at the hospital, identified Legaspi and Franco as the assailants. Dr. Bernales conducted an autopsy on Deveza's body and found gunshot wounds. Dr. de Sagun testified about Dazo's injuries. The defense claimed alibi and denial, stating that Legaspi was at his father's house during the time of the crime.

On November 29, 1992, police officers received a tip that individuals involved in a robbery and murder had taken refuge in the Franco Compound. The police went to the compound, gathered eleven male residents including Legaspi and Franco, and invited them to the Pasay City Police Headquarters for verification. Legaspi and Franco were asked to stay until 7 PM while the others were released.

On November 30, 1992, police officers returned to the Franco compound and invited Legaspi and Franco to the police headquarters for further questioning. At the police station, one Bernard Bulos pointed at Legaspi and Franco as the perpetrators of the crime.

On December 1, 1992, a paraffin test was conducted on Legaspi and Franco, which yielded negative results for both of them.

On May 5, 1994, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City convicted Legaspi and Franco of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, based on the alleged presence of conspiracy between them.

Legaspi appealed the guilty verdict, citing violations of his constitutional rights and lack of evidence. Franco, on the other hand, challenged the trial court's finding of his identity as one of the assailants and the disregard of his defense of alibi. The Court is tasked to resolve the issues regarding the establishment of the crime, sufficiency of evidence, presence of conspiracy, and alleged violation of the accused-appellants' rights.

The trial court convicted accused-appellant Legaspi for the crime of robbery with homicide based on clear evidence establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the same guilty verdict is not adopted for accused-appellant Franco due to the prosecution's failure to prove his culpability with moral certainty. Accused-appellant Legaspi's alibi and denial defenses are found to be weak, with the courts viewing alibi with suspicion because it is easy to fabricate. The positive identification of Legaspi by prosecution witnesses Tulod and Dazo further weakens his defense.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the lower court erred in convicting accused-appellant Legaspi of a crime not proven convincingly and conclusively by the evidence presented by the prosecution.

2. Whether the defense of alibi and denial raised by accused-appellant Legaspi should be given weight.

3. Whether the credibility of prosecution witnesses Tulod and Dazo should be doubted.

4. Whether Dennis Legaspi is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

5. Whether the prosecution was able to establish the element of robbery.

6. Whether the killing of Carlos Deveza and the shooting of Wilfredo Dazo are connected to the robbery.

7. Whether motive is necessary to prove the crime of robbery with homicide.

8. Whether the non-flight of the accused-appellants is a conclusive proof of innocence.

9. Whether the negative results of the paraffin test on the accused-appellants are conclusive to show their innocence.

10. Whether the constitutional rights of the accused-appellants were violated during their arrest and questioning.

11. Whether the trial court's judgment of conviction is based on evidence extracted, produced or elicited during the "initial questioning" conducted by Chief Inspector Santos.

12. Whether the accused-appellants validly waived their right to raise the infirmity and assail the legality of the arrest.

13. Whether or not the acts of Emilio Franco Y Faderan establish his participation in the crime of robbery with homicide.

14. Whether or not conspiracy can be established solely based on the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court affirms the conviction of accused-appellant Legaspi as the prosecution clearly established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

2. The defense of alibi and denial raised by accused-appellant Legaspi failed to meet the requirements of time and place. The positive identification of accused-appellant Legaspi by credible prosecution witnesses prevails over alibi and denial.

3. The credibility of prosecution witnesses Tulod and Dazo should not be doubted. Their testimonies, without any showing of ill-motive, are entitled to full faith and credit.

4. Yes, Dennis Legaspi is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The testimony of the eyewitness, Ramon Tulod, positively identifying Legaspi as the assailant who shot and killed Carlos Deveza was corroborated by the post-mortem findings and testimony of the NBI Medico-Legal Officer. Furthermore, another witness, Wilfredo Dazo, positively identified Legaspi as the person who shot him and walked away from where Deveza was shot.

5. Yes, the prosecution was able to establish the element of robbery. The witness, Ramon Tulod, testified that after Deveza was shot, Legaspi took Deveza's black shoulder bag. This testimony was corroborated by the description of the bag and the attire of the gunman as provided by Tulod.

6. Yes, the killing of Carlos Deveza and the shooting of Wilfredo Dazo are connected to the robbery. The motive for these acts was to eliminate opposition and ensure the success of the robbery. The physical injuries sustained by Dazo are deemed absorbed in the crime of robbery with homicide.

7. Motive is not necessary to prove the crime of robbery with homicide. Eyewitness testimonies satisfactorily establish the commission of the crime.

8. Non-flight of the accused-appellants is not a conclusive proof of innocence. The court recognizes that an accused may choose not to flee and instead hide or lie in ambush.

9. Negative results of the paraffin test on the accused-appellants are not conclusive to show their innocence. The test can prove the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand but is unreliable in determining if a person has fired a gun.

10. The arrest of the accused-appellants did not violate their constitutional rights as they were merely invited for questioning. However, the initial questioning of Emilio Franco conducted without a written record and without the presence of counsel may have violated Franco's rights.

11. The trial court's guilty verdict on accused-appellant Legaspi is based on the positive identification and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, not the evidence obtained during the "initial questioning". Therefore, the conviction is valid.

12. Accused-appellants Legaspi and Franco validly waived their right to raise the infirmity and assail the legality of the arrest by entering a plea of not guilty and participating in the trial. Any irregularity in the arrest was cured by the voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

13. The acts attributed to Emilio Franco Y Faderan, such as walking away from the crime scene and wrestling with another person, do not suffice to prove his participation in the crime of robbery with homicide.

14. Mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission is not sufficient to establish conspiracy. Without clear and convincing evidence of how the accused participated in the perpetration of the crime, conspiracy cannot be appreciated against him.

PRINCIPLES:

• Alibi must strictly meet the requirements of time and place, and the element of physical impossibility must be clearly shown. Positive identification prevails over alibi and denial.

• An accused's alibi established only by himself and his relatives is not deserving of consideration in the face of affirmative testimonies of credible prosecution witnesses.

• Where there is no evidence and nothing to indicate improper motive, the presumption is that prosecution witnesses were not actuated by improper motive, and their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.

• It is natural for witnesses to strive to remember the uncovered face of the assailant and to estimate their next move during a criminal violence incident. People faced with danger can have both passive and impulsive reactions.

• To sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is imperative that the robbery itself be proven conclusively as any other essential element of a crime.

• In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, the homicide may precede or occur after the robbery, as long as there is a direct relation and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing.

• Objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition of jurisdiction over an accused must be made before entering a plea, otherwise, it is deemed waived.

• Law enforcers have a duty to respect constitutional safeguards and comply with the basic law of the land.

• The rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are mechanisms that maintain the balance between governmental power and individual liberties in a democracy.

• Conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and established by positive and conclusive evidence, not mere conjectures.

• Overt acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the crime or moral assistance to co-conspirators.

• Findings of fact and conclusions of trial courts are generally not disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing of a fact or circumstance that would change the result.

• The strength of the evidence for the prosecution, not the weakness of the defense, should be the basis for a judgment of conviction.

• The guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.

• Conviction must rest on hard evidence showing the accused's guilt with moral certainty.

• When the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof, the court is duty-bound to render a judgment of acquittal.