Case Summary (G.R. No. 209342)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Crime date: June 22, 2000. Arrest of NuAez: July 2, 2006. RTC conviction of Marciales and Nabia: December 9, 2005. RTC judgment convicting NuAez (incorporating earlier decision): February 24, 2010. Court of Appeals decision affirming with modification: June 26, 2013. Supreme Court decision reversing and acquitting NuAez: October 4, 2017 (promulgation and release/order processes thereafter).
Indictment and Core Allegations
The Information charged Marciales, Nabia, Paul Pobre (later amended to name NuAez), and “Jun” with robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) RPC: that during the robbery at the Tayuman Caltex station approximately P5,000 and cans of oil were taken and that in the course of the robbery three persons were shot and killed. The gravamen included conspiracy and the allegation that the killings were committed to insure the robbery.
Arrest, Name Amendment, and Identification at Arraignment
When NuAez was apprehended in 2006 he moved for dismissal on the ground that he was not the Paul Pobre named in the Information. The prosecution witnesses, however, identified him as one of the alleged robbers, his motion to dismiss was denied, and the Information was amended to substitute NuAez’s name for “Paul Pobre.” The prosecution adopted the evidence from the trial of Marciales and Nabia and recalled Cruz and Perez, who positively identified NuAez at trial.
Trial Evidence on Guilt
Cruz and Perez recounted the events of the evening of June 22, 2000 at the Caltex station, describing armed intruders, a scuffle, and subsequent shootings. Both witnesses, when testifying in NuAez’s trial, identified him in court as participating in the robbery and as one of the persons who shot the victims. NuAez testified in his own defense, providing an alibi that he was working at his aunt’s fish store in Muzon, Taytay, Rizal, and describing a rough apprehension story after his arrest.
RTC and CA Decisions
The R TC (February 24, 2010) found NuAez guilty beyond reasonable doubt, adopting the earlier RTC decision convicting Marciales and Nabia and relying principally on Cruz’s and Perez’s trial identifications. The RTC sentenced NuAez to reclusion perpetua and imposed civil indemnities, exemplary and moral damages. The Court of Appeals (June 26, 2013) affirmed the conviction but modified amounts of moral and exemplary damages.
Supreme Court’s Central Issue on Appeal
The Supreme Court framed the only remaining issue as identity — whether Crisente NuAez was the same person earlier identified as “Paul Pobre” who participated in the robbery and homicide with Marciales and Nabia. The Court emphasized that the occurrence of the robbery and killings was already established in prior proceedings, so the prosecution’s burden focused on proving the accused’s identity as one of the perpetrators beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Standard on Eyewitness Identification
Applying the 1987 Constitution’s due process and reasonable-doubt standards, the Court reiterated established Philippine jurisprudence using the totality of circumstances test for eyewitness identification (derived from Neil v. Biggers and adopted in People v. Teehankee, Jr.). The relevant factors are: (1) opportunity to view the perpetrator, (2) degree of attention, (3) accuracy of prior description, (4) level of certainty at confrontation, (5) time interval between crime and identification, and (6) suggestiveness of the identification procedure. The Court also referenced Pineda’s catalog of “danger signals” indicating unreliable identification.
Scientific and Comparative Context Emphasized
The Court detailed scientific findings on the frailty of human memory, weapon-focus effect, the reconstructive nature of memory, and the high incidence of wrongful convictions attributable to erroneous eyewitness identification. It surveyed U.S. and U.K. approaches recognizing the problem—U.S. jurisprudence evolving from per se exclusion in certain circumstances to a reliability-focused analysis, and the U.K. Code of Practice prescribing procedures designed to reduce suggestiveness.
Application of Standards to the Facts — Witness Memory and Time Lapse
The Court found significant reasons to doubt the credibility and reliability of Cruz’s and Perez’s identifications: Cruz had earlier testified in the trial of Marciales and Nabia that she could not remember the appearance of the “fourth” robber; both witnesses made the positive identification only after many years (approximately 7–9 years after the incident); and the identifications were made only after NuAez’s arrest and during processes that were, as the Court described, suggestive and practically tailored to produce identification of NuAez exclusively.
Application of Standards — Suggestive Presentation and Procedural Gaps
The Court noted the prosecution did not account for the manner of NuAez’s presentation to the witnesses after arrest, and that his initial identification occurred in a context where he was the sole object of identification (arraignment and post-arrest show-up), increasing the risk of suggestion. The Court considered NuAez’s undisputed claim that the identification occurred only after his arrest and that the prosecution used identification at arraignment to defeat his motion to dismiss. The absence of contemporaneous descriptions and the failure to corroborate identity through non-eyewitness means further weakened the prosecution’s proof.
Application of Standards — Inconsistencies Between Witnesses
The Court underscored material inconsistencies between Cruz’s and Perez’s accounts as to when and how NuAez supposedly participated: Cruz described NuAez as a later entrant who shot Diaz, while Perez described him as one of the initial two inside the office pointing a gun at Diaz. These discrepancies were not minor collateral differences but directly concerned the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 209342)
Case Caption, Citation and Disposition
- Citation: 819 Phil. 406, Third Division, G.R. No. 209342, October 04, 2017.
- Parties: People of the Philippines (Plaintiff-Appellee) v. Crisente PepaAo NuAez (Accused-Appellant).
- Final disposition by the Supreme Court: Decision dated October 4, 2017 reversing the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court; accused Crisente PepaAo NuAez ACQUITTED for reasonable doubt and ordered immediately released unless detained for another lawful cause.
- Administrative directives accompanying the decision: furnish copy to Director, Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation and report within five (5) days; furnish copy to Director General of PNP; entry of judgment to be issued immediately.
Origin, Lower Court Proceedings and Charges
- Original criminal information charged George Marciales, Orly Nabia, Paul Pobre, and an alias “Jun” with robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code for an incident on or about June 22, 2000 at a Caltex gasoline station in Binangonan, Rizal, involving the taking of P5,000.00 and cans of oil and the shooting deaths of Felix V. Regencia, Alexander C. Diaz and Byron G. Dimatulac.
- Initial arrests, trial and conviction: Marciales and Nabia were first arrested, arraigned, and in a December 9, 2005 Regional Trial Court decision were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and sentenced to death; the case against Pobre and “Jun” was archived for revival upon apprehension.
- Apprehension of appellant: On July 2, 2006 Crisente PepaAo NuAez was apprehended by PNP Regional Intelligence Office on the premise he was the same “Paul Pobre” charged in the Information.
- Motion to dismiss by NuAez: NuAez moved to dismiss the case on ground he was not the “Paul Pobre” in the Information; prosecution witnesses later identified him and his motion to dismiss was denied; the Information was amended to state NuAez’s name in lieu of “Paul Pobre.”
- Adoption of earlier trial evidence: During NuAez’s trial, the prosecution adopted the evidence already presented in the Marciales and Nabia trial and also recalled prosecution witnesses Ronalyn Cruz and Relen Perez.
Facts as Adduced by Prosecution Witnesses (Cruz and Perez)
- Ronalyn Cruz (attendant): On the evening of June 22, 2000, while at the Caltex pumps she and co-employees noticed a hold-up in the station office; two persons were pointing guns at Alexander Diaz and Felix Regencia; Regencia handed money to one robber while another reached for a can of oil; Regencia resisted leading to a scuffle; Diaz shouted, and two men ran to the office—first identified as Marciales and the second identified by Cruz as NuAez; Dimatulac ran to assist and Marciales shot Dimatulac while NuAez (referred to in some parts as Nunez) shot Diaz; Cruz and Perez fled to a nearby computer shop and returned 10–15 minutes later to find Diaz dead, Dimatulac gasping and Regencia wounded; robbers were seen rushing toward the highway.
- Relen Perez (sales clerk): On the evening of June 22, 2000, seated near Cruz, Perez testified she saw NuAez pointing a gun at Diaz and another man pointing a gun at Regencia inside the office; Diaz shouted that they were being robbed; Dimatulac and then a man identified as Marciales ran to the office; a commotion ensued and the robber identified as Marciales shot Dimatulac, Diaz and Regencia; the robbers fled and the witnesses took refuge.
- Court identifications at trial: Both Cruz and Perez, when asked in court to point to the person they alleged participated in the incident, pointed to NuAez present in the courtroom and described his role (e.g., Perez testified NuAez was the one pointing a gun at Alexander Diaz).
Appellant’s Testimony and Manifestations
- NuAez’s account of apprehension and alibi: Testified he was apprehended July 2, 2006 while going to his aunt’s fish store; alleged he was dragged, mauled, blindfolded and brought to Camp Vicente Lim; stated that on June 22, 2000 he was in Muzon, Taytay, Rizal at his aunt’s fish store until about 5:00 p.m.; described movements thereafter involving his aunt’s son fetching him to bring pails.
- Manifestation filed with Court of Appeals: NuAez asserted he had no involvement in the offences, claimed mistaken identity with “Paul Borbe y Pipano” (variants spelled in manifest), alleged fabricated charges and that he had a clean record; this Manifestation was not repudiated by the prosecution.
Trial Court (RTC) Decision and Sentence
- RTC Decision of February 24, 2010: Incorporated the original December 9, 2005 RTC decision and added a paragraph explaining NuAez’s supposed complicity; concluded NuAez, together with Marciales and Nabia, robbed the Tayuman Caltex station and shot and killed the three victims; relied on alleged positive and unequivocal identification by Renel Cruz and Ronalyn Perez; rejected NuAez’s alibi as weak.
- RTC Judgment: Found NuAez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1); sentenced to reclusion perpetua; ordered payment of detailed civil indemnities, funeral expenses, exemplary damages and unearned income awards to the heirs of the three victims; archive of case against alias “Jun”; entry of costs.
Court of Appeals Disposition
- CA Decision dated June 26, 2013: Affirmed the RTC Decision with modification to awards of moral and exemplary damages; ordered NuAez to pay P75,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages each to the heirs of the three decedents; dismissed appeal for lack of merit in substance; its decision reproduced and relied upon portions of Cruz’s and Perez’s courtroom identifications and narrative.
Issue on Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Narrowed issue: Not contesting occurrence of robbery and killings (established by convictions of Marciales and Nabia); the single remaining issue before the Supreme Court was whether Crisente PepaAo NuAez is the same person earlier identified as Paul Pobre who conspired with Marciales and Nabia — i.e., whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the identity of NuAez as the perpetrator.
Supreme Court’s Analytical Framework: Frailty of Eyewitness Identification
- General premise: Positive in-court identification is insufficient per se; prosecution must show the identified person matches the witness’s original description and that the identification process was unbiased.
- Scientific and jurisprudential foundation: Human memory is fallible — selective perception, reconstructive nature, vulnerability to post-event information, and contamination through memory retrieval processes; reliance solely on eyewitness identification must be approached meticulously given the consequences of criminal prosecution (loss of liberty, property, or life).
- Empirical observations cited: Brandon Garrett’s study of 250 wrongful convictions showing eyewitness error implicated in 76% of cases; other scholarship characterizing eyewitness identification as the leading cause of wrongful convictions.
- Two-pronged danger: (1) eyewitness identifications are intrinsically error-prone; and (2) observers’ judgments (judges, jurors, law enforcement) about witness accuracy are themselves fallible.
- Extrinsic degraders: environmental conditions (lighting, distance, angle, disguise), suggestive procedures, passage of time, and social influences ca