G.R. No. 257702 - Mark Anthony Pagtakhan y Flores vs. People

On August 27, 2017, in Pasay City, Mark Anthony Pagtakhan y Flores (petitioner) was accused of robbery under Article 293 in relation to Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly using a gun to forcefully take complainant Kent Bryan V. Flores’s bag containing coat and pants (₱4,800), clipboard (₱280), cash (₱300), umbrella (₱300), and shoes (₱1,800), totaling ₱7,480.
The Information was filed December 11, 2017, based on an accompanying Sinumpaang Salaysay and a Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) finding probable cause.

The OCP scheduled hearings; petitioner did not submit evidence. After reviewing complainant’s sworn statement detailing how he asked bystanders his assailant’s identity and later identified petitioner at the police station, the OCP recommended indictment for robbery.
In his Sinumpaang Salaysay, the complainant claimed he learned petitioner’s name from neighbors, then positively identified petitioner in a police “show-up.” He did not describe the assailant’s physical features.

Prosecution’s sole witness was the private complainant, who admitted on cross-examination that he did not immediately report the crime, learned the suspect’s name from others, never saw anyone witness the robbery, and provided no physical description of the robber.
Defense witnesses included petitioner and his common-law wife, who testified to an alibi placing petitioner at home asleep and that complainant and another person mistakenly identified petitioner in detention on a separate drug charge.

RTC (Branch 108, Pasay City) convicted petitioner on March 13, 2019, finding the complainant’s in-court positive identification credible and rejecting denial and alibi defenses.
CA (10th Division) affirmed on November 10, 2020 and denied reconsideration on October 8, 2021, holding that the complainant’s identification was unimpaired by delay and that alibi could not prevail over a positive identification.

Whether the out-of-court identification by the private complainant is a question of fact properly subject to review on certiorari.
Whether the prosecution proved petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly as to his identity as the robber.