G.R. No. 129220 - People vs. Faustino

Case Summary (G.R. No. 129220)

Factual Background

On March 11, 1996, at about 1:30 p.m., two armed men entered BPI Family Bank, BF Homes, Paranaque and forcibly took cash, while bank employees and clients lay prostrate. A loud explosion and gunfire followed. The robbers fled and were later determined to have taken PHP 1,277,956.68. Police Inspector Florendo Escobar was mortally wounded in a subsequent shootout near the bank. The Information charged accused-appellant with robbery with homicide, alleging conspiracy with several named and unnamed accomplices and that the accused shot and caused the death of P/Ins. Florendo Escobar.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented eyewitnesses who placed a gunman at the scene and later identified accused-appellant. Testimony included that of Rowena Solon, assistant bank manager, who described the holdup and flight. Dante K. Inting testified that he saw a man standing by a coconut tree armed with a M-203 grenade launcher and that he recognized accused-appellant from prior surveillance. SPO1 Zaldy Cres recounted the police response, the shootout, his sustaining gunshot wounds, and seeing the lifeless body of Insp. Escobar. Civilian agent Michael Laurenti testified that he observed the gunman fire at the police mobile car and later identified accused-appellant to police after being shown a photograph. Police officers and NBI agents recovered shell casings and other ballistic evidence and prepared a cartographic sketch. The medico-legal officer, Dr. Bienvenido Munoz, performed the autopsy and testified that Insp. Escobar died of gunshot wounds. NBI agents described prior intelligence linking the Faustino brothers and others to a spate of robberies and the circulation of photographs for identification.

Defense Evidence and Alibi

The defense presented witnesses to establish an alibi and to challenge identification. Senior Inspector Emiliano R. Amatosa, SPO2 Datu, barangay officials, and complainants to a separate theft reported that accused-appellant was on duty in Malate, Western Police District, and participated in the arrest and tactical interrogation of a suspect (Romualdo Daloso) on March 11, 1996. Several witnesses testified that accused-appellant remained at the barangay hall and later accompanied the suspect to Station 9. A polygraph examiner testified to a negative polygraph result for accused-appellant. A PNP forensic chemist testified that a paraffin test on accused-appellant’s hands was negative for gunpowder residues.

Procedural History and Trial Court Ruling

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 260, Paranaque, found SPO1 Bernie Jamon Faustino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide under Art. 294, R.P.C., as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and sentenced him to death. The trial court also ordered civil liabilities in favor of the bank and the heirs of the deceased and directed that the records be forwarded for automatic review under Sec. 9, Rule 122.

Assignments of Error on Appeal

In his appeal brief the defense alleged, inter alia, that the trial court erred in refusing a motion for inhibition; erred in convicting the accused based on incredible and fantastic testimony; relied on irregular and belated identification procedures; disregarded a fully corroborated defense of alibi; and convicted despite failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Standard for Eyewitness Identification

The Court reiterated that the prosecution must prove both the commission of the crime and the identity of the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt. For assessing eyewitness identification the Court applied the totality of circumstances test, considering: (1) opportunity to view the perpetrator at the time of the crime; (2) degree of attention; (3) accuracy of any prior description; (4) level of certainty at identification; (5) lapse of time between crime and identification; and (6) suggestiveness of the identification procedure. The Court cited precedents including People vs. Teehankee, People vs. Verzosa, and Neil v. Biggers in articulating the test.

Assessment of Prosecution Identifications

The Court examined the testimony of the three witnesses who identified accused-appellant: Dante K. Inting, SPO1 Zaldy Cres, and Michael Laurenti. It found Inting’s testimony weakened by his failure to report his prior surveillance and recognition of accused-appellant until March 25, 1996, several days after the robbery, and only after an alleged threat; the delay and lack of contemporaneous reporting diminished his credibility. The Court found SPO1 Cres’s identification equivocal, citing his prior statements during the preliminary investigation in which he expressed uncertainty about recognizing the gunman, and noted inconsistencies in his testimony. The Court found Laurenti’s identification suspect because it occurred after he was shown photographs by SPO3 Buccat and after NBI agents circulated pictures that had been obtained from informants; the Court noted the suggestive circumstances and Laurenti’s admission that he initially had not identified the gunman when first interviewed. The Court observed that neither the bank teller who helped describe the gunman to the cartographer nor the security guard who had given descriptions were called as witnesses for the prosecution.

Credibility of Defense Alibi and Corroboration

The Court considered the alibi evidence and found it supported by multiple nonrelative witnesses: S/Insp. Amatosa, SPO2 Datu, barangay chairmen, and complainant witnesses to the unrelated theft investigation. Those witnesses testified to accused-appellant’s presence at Malate Station 9 and at the barangay hall during the critical hours. The Court noted that while alibi can be fabricated, it acquires force when corroborated by credible, independent testimony. The Court also observed corroborative investigative results

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 129220)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines prosecuted the case for the crime of robbery with homicide against SPO1 Bernie Jamon Faustino.
SPO1 Bernie Jamon Faustino pleaded not guilty at arraignment and proceeded to trial.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 260, Paranaque, convicted SPO1 Bernie Jamon Faustino of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to death.
The trial court directed transmission of the records to the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 9, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court and Art. 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 22, R.A. No. 7659.
This Court undertook automatic review of the trial court judgment and rendered the present decision.

Key Factual Allegations

The Information charged that on or about 11 March 1996 in Paranaque the accused, together with others, forcibly took cash from BPI Family Bank, BF Homes, Paranaque Branch, and caused the death of Insp. Florendo Escobar.
Bank witness Rowena Solon testified that two armed men entered the bank around 1:30 p.m., ordered persons to lie down, and that one operative walked to the vault before an explosion and gunfire occurred.
The police recovered empty shells of calibers M-14, M-16, and an M-203 grenade launcher and turned the items over to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
The robbers were later verified to have taken P1,277,956.68 from the bank, although the Information stated P1,150,248.00.
Insp. Florendo Escobar died from a gunshot wound and shrapnel as established by the autopsy prepared by Dr. Bienvenido Munoz, Medico-Legal Officer, NBI.

Identification Evidence

The prosecution relied on out-of-court and in-court identifications by three principal witnesses: Dante K. Inting, SPO1 Zaldy Cres, and Michael Laurenti.
Dante K. Inting testified that he saw the accused near Aguirre Street firing an M-203 and that he had previously observed the accused and his group in the area in the days preceding the robbery.
SPO1 Zaldy Cres gave a hesitant identification and earlier statements reflected uncertainty about recognizing the gunman in person.
Michael Laurenti identified the accused only after being shown photographs by SPO3 Pedro Buccat two days after the incident, and he acknowledged being shown pictures which were described to him as suspects.
The prosecution used a cartographic sketch and photographs obtained by NBI agents and by informants to secure identifications from witnesses.

Weaknesses in Prosecution Identification

The Court noted that Inting delayed reporting his identification to the authorities until 25 March 1996 and explained his delay by reference to a subsequent threat.
The Court found SPO1 Cres to be tentative and equivocal in his identification during preliminary and trial proceedings.
The Court found that Laurenti was influenced by showing of photographs and by statements from investigators that the pictures depicted suspects, which rendered his identification susceptible to suggestion.
The Court emphasized the absence of testimony from bank employees who allegedly described the gunmen to the cartographer, specifically the non-production of Tina Ocampo and Wilfredo Novilla as witnesses.

Defense Evidence and Alibi

The defense presented