Case Summary (G.R. No. 127263)
Relevant Dates and Procedural Milestones
– August 27, 2017: Alleged robbery occurred along Villaruel Street, Pasay City
– December 11, 2017: Office of the City Prosecutor issued resolution finding probable cause and recommending indictment
– March 13, 2019: RTC Branch 108, Pasay City, convicted petitioner of robbery
– November 10, 2020: Court of Appeals affirmed RTC decision
– October 8, 2021: CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
– February 7, 2024: Supreme Court resolved petitioner’s Petition for Review on Certiorari
Factual Background
The Information charged petitioner with forcibly taking personal belongings—clothing, a clipboard, cash, umbrella, and shoes—valued at ₱7,480 from private complainant, by means of force and intimidation while armed with a gun. The private complainant filed a sworn narrative indicating he learned the perpetrator’s identity only after inquiry among bystanders, then positively identified petitioner at a police precinct.
Trial Court Findings
The RTC held that (1) all elements of robbery were established beyond reasonable doubt; (2) the private complainant’s in-court positive identification was credible; and (3) petitioner’s alibi defense was inherently weak and uncorroborated, noting that alibi from relatives merits skepticism. Petitioner was sentenced to four to eight years’ imprisonment.
Appellate Court Ruling
The CA affirmed, emphasizing that (1) positive identification prevails over denial or alibi when the witness’s description matches the accused’s appearance; (2) delay in reporting is irrelevant if adequately explained; and (3) the place was well-lit, supporting reliability. It likewise gave no weight to petitioner’s alibi.
Issues on Supreme Court Review
- Whether private complainant’s out-of-court identification of petitioner was reliable and admissible.
- Whether guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Standards on Identification
Under Teehankee, Jr., courts apply a totality-of-circumstances test for out-of-court identifications, considering:
- Opportunity to view the suspect;
- Degree of attention;
- Accuracy of prior description;
- Witness’s certainty;
- Time lapse between crime and identification;
- Suggestiveness of the procedure.
Precedents such as Arapok, Concha, and Baconguis condemn suggestive show-ups without prior description, stressing that initial reliability is essential to uphold in-court identifications.
Analysis of Identification Procedure
Record review reveals no contemporaneous description of the perpetrator’s physical features by private complainant. His sworn narrative already named petitioner and cited personal details (age, address, marital status, pending drug case) likely obtained from bystanders or police, not from direct observation. The absence of any description in police reports or sworn statement renders the identification tainted and suggestive. Cross-examination admitted that the complainant had no personal knowledge of the perpetrator’s identity until informed by others and only reported after learning petitioner was detained.
Application of Precedents and Totality Test
- No prior description was given to bystanders or police, violating the third Teehankee factor.
- The identification w
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 127263)
Procedural History
- The Supreme Court received a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated November 10, 2020 and Resolution dated October 8, 2021 in CA-G.R. CR No. 43208.
- The CA had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 108, Decision dated March 13, 2019 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-18-15642-CR, which convicted petitioner of robbery under Article 293 in relation to Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code.
- Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal before the CA, followed by a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA denied, leading to the present recourse before the Supreme Court.
Factual Background
- On or about August 27, 2017, at around 4:21 AM, private complainant Kent Bryan V. Flores was walking along Villaruel Street, Pasay City, when petitioner allegedly approached him, brandished a firearm, and forcibly took his bag.
- The stolen items comprised: an Amerikana (coat & pants) worth ₱4,800.00; clipboard worth ₱280.00; cash ₱300.00; umbrella ₱300.00; shoes ₱1,800.00—totaling ₱7,480.00.
- The Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City found probable cause on December 11, 2017, based on the complainant’s sworn statement (Sinumpaang Salaysay) and lack of refuting evidence from petitioner during preliminary investigation.
- In the Sinumpaang Salaysay, complainant narrated post-robbery inquiries with bystanders, identification of petitioner at the police office, and expressed absolute certainty that petitioner was his assailant.
Out-of-Court and In-Court Identification
- Complainant stated before the investigating prosecutor that he learned of petitioner’s name from people in the area after describing the robber, then proceeded to the police station to identify him.
- During trial, complainant testified that he did not personally know the perpetrator’s features until after asking around and that at the scene there were no other witnesses; he also confirmed the place was “bright” at 4:21 AM.
- No physical description of the assailant’s facial or bodily features appears in the police report, resolution, or Sinumpaang Salaysay beyond the name “Mark Anthony Pagtakhan y Flores.”
Defense Evidence and Alibi
- Petitioner testified that on the date of the incident he was at home on Facundo Street, Pasay City, asleep with his family, having never met or seen the complainant before.
- Petitioner claimed he was arrested for a separate drug offense on September 11, 2017, after which the complainant allegedly visited the precinct and mistakenly pointed him out as the robber.
- Rosalyn Mendoza, petitioner’s common-law partner, corroborated t