Case Digest (G.R. No. 161970)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 161970)
Facts:
Dundee A. Viernes v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 161970, June 30, 2006, the Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Dundee Viernes was charged with violation of P.D. No. 532 (Anti‑Piracy and Anti‑Highway Robbery Law of 1974) arising from an alleged hold‑up on November 15, 1992, aboard a passenger jeepney in the Manila/Caloocan area in which Ronaldo Lopango was stabbed and died and his wife Josefina dela Cruz claimed a plastic bag containing clothes and P3,000 was taken. Josefina gave a sworn statement at the Caloocan police station about three hours after the incident in which she initially said no valuables were taken and located the incident at Sta. Catalina, Caloocan; three days later she gave another sworn statement at the Manila police alleging that her bag with P3,000 was taken near R. Papa St., Manila.
Petitioner was arrested shortly after the incident, arraigned on December 9, 1992, and pleaded not guilty. At trial Josefina testified identifying petitioner as one of the malefactors and said the belongings (except the cash) were returned to her by the apprehending bystanders. Petitioner asserted an alibi corroborated by family members who testified he was away to fetch a cousin for his mother’s birthday and was later found detained at Precinct 7 with injuries he attributed to police mauling; his sister claimed Josefina told police at the precinct that petitioner was not the culprit. The prosecution did not present the police officers who apprehended or investigated petitioner.
The Regional Trial Court (Manila, Branch 30) by decision dated October 12, 1995 convicted petitioner of highway robbery under P.D. No. 532 and sentenced him to reclusion temporal and indemnification; the Court of Appeals, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam dated July 31, 2003, modified the conviction to simple robbery under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code and imposed an indeterminate prison term. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court (Third Division) reviewed the records and rendered judgment setting aside the conviction.
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt?
- Do the inconsistencies between the victim’s extrajudicial statements and her testimony, together with the absence of corroboration, justify discrediting her identification and testimony?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)