Case Summary (G.R. No. 135222)
Facts of the Case
Victim Snyder testified that at around 8:30 a.m. she was walking along Jolo Street when a tandem-riding motorcycle stopped beside her. The backrider allegedly grabbed three necklaces from her neck and the duo fled. Snyder cried for help, reported the incident at the police station, and identified petitioner from photos shown immediately afterward. Police then brought Snyder to petitioner’s home, where Lauzon was found hiding. Snyder did not recover her jewelry.
RTC Findings and Judgment
The RTC credited Snyder’s clear, consistent, and motive-free testimony. It found all elements of robbery present: taking of another’s property with animus lucrandi and violence against persons. It also found conspiracy between petitioner and Lauzon. Sentence imposed: prision correccional (4 years 2 months) to prision mayor (8 years 20 days) and ₱70,100.00 civil indemnity plus 6% interest from finality.
CA Ruling and Modification
The CA rejected petitioner’s challenge to Snyder’s credibility and sustained the robbery conviction. It modified the penalty range to prision correccional (4 years 2 months) minimum to prision mayor (8 years) maximum, and clarified interest accrues from finality. Petition for review followed.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether identification testimony of Snyder was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the offense should be classified as theft rather than robbery.
Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner contended:
- Snyder’s identification was contradicted by human‐nature considerations, emotional shock, and inconsistencies.
- Even if he acted, the act constituted theft, not robbery, since no violence, intimidation, or force was proven.
Respondent argued:
- Snyder’s positive, daylight identification was credible and unimpaired by shock.
- The grabbing of necklaces implied use of violence or force, distinguishing robbery from theft.
Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
Under Rule 45, the Supreme Court reviews only pure questions of law. Factual issues—such as witness credibility and identification—are binding if affirmed by both RTC and CA, absent grave abuse of discretion or findings grounded on conjecture.
Credibility and Identification
The Court declined to reevaluate Snyder’s credibility and identification of petitioner, as both lower courts had consistent findings and no exception to the Rule 45 bar on factual review applied.
Distinction between Robbery and Theft
RPC Art. 293 defines robbery as taking personal property with “violence against or intimidation of any person” or “force upon anything.” Under Art. 294, robbery with violence/intimidation is punishable in varying degrees; simple robbery under par. 5 requires proof of violence or intimidation. Theft under Art. 308 lacks these elements.
Application of Law to Facts
Snyder’s testimony merely described a sudden “grab” of her necklaces without any allegation of physical injury, fear, coercion, or force suffi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 135222)
Factual Antecedents
- On July 29, 2010, at around 8:30 a.m., Rosario S. Snyder was walking along Jolo Street, Barangay Barreto, Olongapo City, using her cellphone.
- A motorcycle with two occupants stopped beside her; the backrider forcibly grabbed three necklaces from her person, valued at ₱43,800.00, ₱13,500.00, and ₱12,800.00 (total ₱70,100.00), and the pair sped away.
- Snyder shouted for help; a nearby tricycle driver pursued but failed to overtake the assailants; Snyder then reported the incident at the police station.
- At the station, Snyder identified petitioner Jomar Ablaza y Caparas as the motorcycle driver from photographs, explaining she had a clear view of his face (no helmet worn) when the robbers looked back.
- A police officer brought Snyder to petitioner’s home; petitioner denied involvement; Snyder and police discovered co-accused Jay Lauzon y Farrales hiding under the kitchen sink.
- Snyder did not recover her necklaces.
Defense Version
- Petitioner testified that on the date in question, he and Lauzon were asleep in his house after a drinking spree the night before.
- He claimed mistaken identity when a policeman and a woman later visited his home; the woman admitted he was not the “tisoy” (mestizo) with a tattoo she was looking for.
- Two months later, petitioner was arrested in connection with the incident.
- On cross-examination, petitioner admitted lack of prior acquaintance with Snyder and disclosed involvement in other robbery and theft cases.
Regional Trial Court Ruling
- RTC Branch 75, Olongapo City credited Snyder’s testimony as candid, clear, coherent, and without improper motive.
- Found all elements of robbery with violence or intimidation under Article 294(5), RPC:
• Taking of personal property belonging to another
• Animus lucrandi
• Violence against or intimidation of persons - Conspiracy between petitioner and Lauzon established.
- Sentence imposed: prision correccional (4 years, 2 months minimum to 8 years, 20 days maximum); joint civil indemnity of ₱70,10