[G.R. No. 142870. January 29, 2002]

PEOPLE vs. PAJOTAL, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 29 2002.

G.R. No. 142870 (People of the Philippines v. Dindo Pajotal y Fetalcorin; Randy Gabay [at large] and Lindo Gabay [at large] - accused; Dindo Pajotal y Fetalcorin - accused-appellant.)

Accused-appellant Dindo Pajotal y Fetalcorin moves for reconsideration of the decision, dated November 14, 2001, affirming his death sentence for the crime of robbery with homicide, aggravated by abuse of superior strength, and ordering him to pay the legal heirs of the victim, Winefred Espina, P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P41,000.00 actual damages, P50,000.00 moral damages, P20,000.00 exemplary damages, and costs.

Accused-appellant contends (1) that he should not have been convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide because according to the findings of the Court, the victim was shot (should be stabbed) after his money had been taken from him; and (2) that his defense of alibi should be given credence in view of the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution.

Both the contentions are without merit. As pointed out in the Court’s decision, in the crime of robbery with homicide, it does not matter if the homicide preceded or occurred after the robbery so long as there is a direct relation or intimate connection between the two (People v. Guiapar, 129 SCRA 539 (1984)). This relation/connection is present in this case where, according to the testimony of the prosecution eyewitness, Arnold Bugayon, the victim was stabbed because he ran after accused-appellant and the latter’s companions in an attempt to recover the money they took from him.

Anent accused-appellant’s alibi, the Court has already considered the same as unavailing against the clear, positive, and convincing eyewitness account of Bugayon identifying accused-appellant as one of those who assaulted the victim. In any case, accused-appellant failed to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the scene during the commission of the crime. His house, where he claimed to be at the time of the incident, was just half a kilometer away from the crime scene.

Considering the foregoing, the Court RESOLVED to DENY with FINALITY accused-appellant’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court