FACTS:

The appellant was charged with robbery with homicide for entering the victim's house and stabbing her to death. The prosecution presented the testimony of the victim's 5-year-old son, Carl, who witnessed the incident and identified the appellant as the perpetrator. Carl's father, Dennis, also testified that his son pointed to the appellant as the person who stabbed his mother. The victim's sister-in-law, Sharon, corroborated Carl's identification of the appellant. The police officers also testified that Carl positively identified the appellant. The cause of the victim's death was determined to be a stab wound.

The appellant, on the other hand, claimed that he was innocent and that he was at the victim's billiard hall until 11 pm on the night of the crime. He said that he was woken up by screams for help and denied any involvement in the crime. His mother supported his alibi. However, the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua.

On appeal, the appellant argued that Carl's testimony was inconsistent and therefore not credible. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, emphasizing the credibility of Carl's identification. The appellant also claimed that there was no proof of violence or intimidation in the commission of the robbery. The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the appellant intended to rob the victim's house, with the homicide incidentally occurring. The Court ruled that the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator was credible and competent, resulting in the denial of the appeal.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the robbery with homicide was credible and competent, considering that the identifying witness was a child.

2. Whether the trial judge committed any error in assessing the credibility of the witness.

3. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimony of the child witness affect his credibility.

4. Whether the child witness's failure to shout for help affects his credibility.

5. Whether the robbery element in the crime of robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Whether or not the appellant should be liable to pay exemplary damages.

7. Whether or not the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals should be increased.

8. Whether or not the appellant should be liable to pay interest on the monetary awards for damages.

RULING:

1. The identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the robbery with homicide was credible and competent, even though the identifying witness was a child. The Rules of Court allow anyone who is sensible and aware of a relevant event or incident, and can communicate such awareness, experience, or observation to others, to be a witness. Age is not a disqualification for being a witness, as long as the person does not possess any of the disqualifications listed in the rules. The dismissal of the testimonies of child witnesses in the past has been erased, and every child is now presumed qualified to be a witness. The burden of proof lies on the party challenging the child's competency, and a competency examination of the child will be conducted only when substantial doubt exists regarding the child's ability to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court.

2. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court. The trial judge has the unique advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses while testifying, which the appellate court does not have. Hence, the trial judge's assessment of witnesses' testimonies and findings of fact are accorded great respect on appeal. In the absence of any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings. In this case, the appellant did not object to the competency of the witness or challenge his capacity to distinguish right from wrong, perceive events, or communicate his perception to the trial court. The trial judge favorably determined the competency of the witness to testify against the appellant.

3. The inconsistencies in the testimony of the child witness are minor and peripheral matters and do not negate the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator. The inconsistencies have negligible effect on his testimony and his credibility remains intact.

4. The child witness's failure to shout for help upon witnessing the stabbing does not affect his credibility. It cannot be expected for a child to react and behave like an adult in such a situation.

5. The robbery element in the crime of robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was armed with a long-bladed weapon, which proves the presence of violence or intimidation against persons that qualifies the offense as robbery instead of theft. The killing of the victim occurred in the course or on the occasion of the perpetration of the robbery.

6. Yes, the appellant should be liable to pay exemplary damages. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be granted if at least one aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime. The aggravating circumstance need not be specifically alleged in the information and can be either a qualifying or attendant circumstance. The ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal liability of the offender and not to the civil liability. Therefore, the offended party is entitled to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.

7. Yes, the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals should be increased. In line with current jurisprudence, the civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00, and the moral damages should also be increased to P75,000.00.

8. Yes, the appellant should be liable to pay interest on the monetary awards for damages. The appellant should pay the heirs of the victim interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum on all the monetary awards for damages from the date of the finality of the decision until the awards are fully paid.

PRINCIPLES:

• The identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime is of utmost importance in the successful prosecution.

• Age is not a disqualification for being a witness, as long as the person does not possess any of the disqualifications listed in the rules.

• The testimonies of child witnesses are now presumed qualified, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging their competency.

• The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court, and its findings are accorded great respect on appeal.

• The determination of a child witness's capacity to perceive and ability to communicate their perception rests with the trial court, and should not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a strong showing of mistake or misappreciation.

• Findings of fact by the trial court are entitled to great respect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, due to their direct and personal access to witnesses during the trial.

• A conviction for robbery with homicide requires the concurrence of the following elements: taking of personal property with intent to gain, use of violence or intimidation against a person, and the crime of homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.

• Robbery with homicide is a composite crime, treated as a single offense, and is distinct from a complex or compound crime. In a composite crime, the composition of offenses is fixed by law, while in a complex or compound crime, the combination of offenses is not specified but generalized.

• Aggravating circumstances that were not specifically alleged in the information cannot raise the penalty to be imposed. However, they can be appreciated to justify the grant of exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim.

• Exemplary damages may be awarded in accordance with relevant jurisprudence.