Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21860)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Violeto Villacorte y Gerbin, alias Bonging, et al., G.R. No. L-21860, February 28, 1974, the Supreme Court Second Division, Fernandez, J., writing for the Court.The case arose from the August 27, 1959 robbery with homicide of Benito Ching, a Chinese merchant in Grace Park, Caloocan, who was waylaid while going home from his sari-sari store with the day’s proceeds in a paper bag; he was shot and died the following day. His two employees, Pedro Libantino and Modesto Galvez, accompanied him and were present at the scene. Four men accosted them: one snatched the bag, another fired the fatal shot, and two restrained Galvez. The perpetrators fled; Ching staggered to his home and was taken to hospital.
Initial interrogation by the Caloocan police the same night produced no identifications. Subsequent investigations by the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) at Camp Crame in September 1959 produced positive identifications: Galvez and Libantino identified Violeto Villacorte as the bag-snatcher/gunman; Villacorte later admitted at CIS interrogation that he snatched the bag and fired the pistol and named companions as “Roque,” “Sante,” and “Fred.” The information filed on September 12, 1959 named Villacorte, Roque Guerrero and Alfredo Handig (Fred), and John Doe alias Sante; it was amended on September 24 to substitute Crisanto Inoferio y Alindao for John Doe and to add Marciano Yusay. Roque Guerrero was later discharged by the trial court to be used as a State witness.
At trial in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (decision dated May 15, 1963), Handig was acquitted, while Villacorte, Yusay and Crisanto Inoferio were convicted; Villacorte did not appeal, Yusay withdrew his appeal (motion granted July 10, 1967), and only Inoferio appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal to this Court raised chiefly the sufficiency and credibility of identification and the alibi defense offered by Inoferio.
The prosecution’s case against Inoferio rested mainly on the in-court identifications by Galvez and the testimony of state witness Roque Guerrero; Libantino did not identify Inoferio at trial and in earlier statements did not name him. Inoferio testified in his own defense, insisting he did not know Villacorte or Handig before Camp Crame confrontations and denying participation in the holdup; he narrated two visits to Camp Crame during which he alleged CIS agents sought to pressure him (including offer to make him a government witness, being shown and asked to display his tattoo, and physical coercion by an agent named Morales who allegedly slapped and tied a belt around his neck during questioning). The trial court nonetheless convicted him; on appeal the Supreme Court reviewed the trial record, examined inconsistencies between witnesses’ statements (including discrepancies on lighting of the scene and who hel...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that Crisanto Inoferio participated in the robbery with homicide?
- Were the identification testimonies of Modesto Galvez and Roque Guerrero sufficiently credible and free from suggestion or coercion to support conviction?
- Could the accused’s defense of alibi, though inherently weak, when considered ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)