Case Digest (G.R. No. L-52)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Teodoro de la Cruz y Tojos, G.R. No. L-52, February 21, 1946, Supreme Court Second Division, Perfecto, J., writing for the Court.
The appellant, Teodoro de la Cruz y Tojos, was charged with robbery in band allegedly committed on June 25, 1945 (the court record also situates the factual occurrence at about 8:30 p.m. on July 25, 1945). The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted him and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of not less than six months nor more than six years, ten months and one day, ordered indemnity of P8,000, imposed subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and taxed costs against him. Appellant appealed, seeking acquittal; the prosecution recommended affirmance but asked that subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency be eliminated and noted a clerical lapse in the lower court’s designation of the exact classification of the principal penalty.
At trial the prosecution’s case rested chiefly on eyewitness testimony. Dr. Gregorio B. Sison testified that when four armed men forced entry into his drug store he was threatened with a revolver, saw the assailant who pressed the revolver to his ribs, and had “a good look” at him. Luz Mendoza de Sison testified that she saw the man repeatedly (there were three gas lights in the store), that she heard one of the robbers call a man “Doro,” and that she attempted to look at the man and observed him manipulating his revolver. Detective Alejandro Eugenio testified that appellant, after being arrested in connection with another holdup and said to be named “Doro,” was brought to the drug store on July 17 and identified by Luz Mendoza de Sison in a police-arranged presentation.
Appellant denied participation and gave an uncertain alibi, saying he might have been at home or at Felix Huertas; he also described his livelihood as selling bread, shoes and other items and admitted gambling. The trial court resolved credibility against him and convicted. On appeal to the Supreme Court (by direct appeal from the trial court...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the conviction based on eyewitness identification sufficiently supported so as to warrant affirmance?
- Should the subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency imposed by the trial court be retained, or should it be deleted fro...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)