People v Taneo ROBBERY w/ HOMICIDE

FACTS: Taneo, Escoreal and Codilla were charged with Robbery with Homicide.
The accused entered the inhabited house of Sia, took, stole and carried away various
items which are approximately worth P13,600.00.
Further, they attacked, assaulted and used personal violence upon Linda, Sia's maid, by
hacking her head and face with a bottle of beer grande and RC cola, resulting to her
instantaneous death.
Only Taneo and Codilla were apprehended while Escoreal remained at large. On
arraignment, Codillar entered a plea of not guilty while Taneo pleaded guilty for the same
offense, and was charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
Trial on the merits for Codilla ensued. The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses while
Codilla and three (3) others testified for the defense.
SIA: She previously hired Codilla as a guard. When he kept bringing friends over, she
fired him as his friends were suspicious-looking.
She testified that Linda told her that it was CODILLA who struck her.
TANEO: Testified that he and Escoreal were both jeepney barkers/dispatchers. That he
was introduced by ESCOREAL to CODILLA who said that he planned to rob the house
of DR. SIA, as his revenge.

Codilla entred the premises and lured the houseboy out of the residence. ESCOREAL
acted as LOOKOUT.
When he and ARNEL GO went out of the house, they were arrested and were brought
back to the house of Dr. Sia.
In jail, CODILLA allegedly offered him P2,000.00 to save him. He refused but Codilla's
wife forced him to receive the money.
ARRESTING OFFICER MINISTERIO: He and some police responded to a phone call
and went to the house of Dr. Sia, took custody of Taneo and Go who were caught in
flagrante delicto. The following day they arrested CODILLA.
DR. PEREZ: He treated Linda for multiple laceration in her head and face caused by a
blunt object. Five hours later she died.
DEFENSE***
POL. CPL. ROA: Taneo allegedly told him that CODILLA had nothing to do with the
Robbery-homicide. That Taneo implicated Codilla because Dr. Sia promised him P300
but only P200 was given to him. ???
CODILLA: He was hired by Dr. Sia but was terminated. He DENIED THE CHARGE that
he and Taneo committed the offense because he was in the house of his friend ROBERT.
That he only knew of Taneo after he was arrested by the Police.
DR. SIA instigated Taneo to implicate him because at the time she hired somebody to lob
a grenade inside the house of his boyfriend's wife, he stopped her. HE SHOWED A
PICTURE OF THE ALLEGED BOYFRIEND "Eliezer Magdales"
He was in his brother's house at LAHUG.
CABRIANA (Volunteer in Jail Ministry): Taneo told her that he killed Linda using an empty
beer bottle. That his only companion was ESCOREAL.
That CODILLA told her that he was in his brother's house at Lahug. BUT DURING THE
CROSS, she said that she did not have any occassion to talk to Codilla bec. he was not
under her bible class.
PARENO (Neighbor): She saw CODILLA in their house about 4pm watching tv.
***The trial court found CODILLA GBRD and is sentenced to RECLUSIO PERPETUA
***RTC rejected CODILLA'S defense of ALIBI because his residence in Brgy. Camputhaw
is only less than an hour by jeepney to the residence of Dr. Sia.
***It was NOT PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR CODILLA to be at the scene of the crime
when it was committed.
***Codilla was POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED by Taneo who had no motive to perjure his
testimony.
ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimony of TANEO, the
co-accused of appellant.
WON Taneo's credibility as a witness is questionable as he had been apprehended twice
for robbery and twice prosecuted therefor. (Although both cases were dismissed-failure
to prosecute)
***SC: APPEAL DEVOID OF MERIT
HELD: Deeply embedded in our jurisprudence that when the issue of credibility of
a witness is concerned, the appellate court will generally NOT DISTURB THE FINDINGS
OF THE TRIAL COURT, bec the latter is in a better position to decide the same.
Section 20, Rule 130: Who may be witnesses
The mere pendency of a criminal case against a person does not disqualify him from
becoming a witness. Even CONVICTION OF A CROME does not disqualify such person
from being presented as a witness unless otherwise provided by law.
***POSITIVE ID PREVAILS OVER THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI