PEOPLE V.

BUABAYAN
Prospectivity | 400 SCRA 48 | March 28, 2003 | Corona

FACTS: On January 2, 1990, Paulino Buabayan, Larry Betache, Marciano Toñacao, Yoyong
Buabayan, and Pedro Tumulak, all armed, entered house of Dioscoro Abonales. Tumulak and
P. Buabayan pointed their guns at fiancees Rolando Verdida and Elizabeth Abonales and
ordered them to lie flat on the floor. Toñacao and Y. Buabayan entered room where Dioscoro
was sleeping. Yoyong kicked him in the face, and Toñacao shot him in the neck. Betache was
standing guard outside the house. Tumulak went to the kitchen and took P30,000 from Josefa
Abonales, while someone forcibly took Verdida’s wallet containing P10,000.

Trial court found Tumulak guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua
along with Paulino Buabayan. Betache sentenced to indeterminate penalty. Toñacao and
Yoyong Buabayan at large. Present case is an appeal from said decision.

ISSUES & RATIO:

1. WON findings of trial court can be overturned by fact that judge who wrote decision was
not the judge who heard witness testimonies - NO
a. Correctness of a decision not impaired by the fact alone that writer took over
from presiding colleague, unless there is showing of grave abuse of discretion
2. WON trial court erred in giving full faith to witness testimony and disregarding that of the
defense - NO
a. Positive identification of perpetrators made by multiple eyewitnesses.
b. Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not detract from their credibility.
3. WON trial court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of robbery with homicide - NO
a. To properly appreciate defense of alibi, requirements of place and time1 must be
met. Appellant did not have sound alibi.
b. Conspiracy inferred from acts of perpetrators before, during, and after crime,
indicating common design, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments.

RULING: Decision of trial court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the award of damages.

1
Accused must prove that he was somewhere else when crime was committed and that it was physically
impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission