Title
People vs. Pineda y Manalo
Case
G.R. No. 141644
Decision Date
May 27, 2004
Appellant acquitted of highway robbery with homicide due to unreliable witness identification, credible alibi, and prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 81510)

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Rolando Pineda y Manalo

Key Dates

• October 15, 1997 – Alleged robbery with homicide on an air-conditioned bus in Caloocan City
• January 21, 2000 – RTC Caloocan Branch 127 decision convicting Pineda
• May 27, 2004 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (presumption of innocence)
• Revised Penal Code, Article 294 (robbery with homicide, aggravated by “by a band”), as amended by RA 7659
• Rules on photographic identification and standards for eyewitness testimony

Criminal Information

Appellant was charged with highway robbery resulting in homicide. The information alleged that on October 15, 1997, Pineda and five companions, armed with firearms, forcibly boarded a Dreamline bus, staged a hold-up, robbed passengers and crew, and shot the victim SPO1 Fuensalida, causing his death.

Prosecution’s Version of Facts

On the evening of October 15, 1997, Ferrer was driving a bus along Quirino Highway when Pineda, seated near conductor Ramos, pulled a gun on Ferrer’s nape, announced the robbery, and ordered the passengers to bow their heads. The robbers divested passengers and crew of cash and valuables. A struggle ensued when victim Fuensalida grappled for his service revolver; Pineda allegedly ordered his cohorts to shoot, and six shots were fired. The bus stopped, all perpetrators alighted, and the mortally wounded Fuensalida was left on the floor. Police recovered shell casings and slugs, conducted medico-legal examination confirming multiple fatal gunshot wounds, and identified Pineda and co-accused via witness statements and out-of-court photographic IDs.

Police Investigation and Identification

• On the night of the incident, Ferrer and Ramos gave sworn statements but Ramos initially could not identify any assailant.
• Months later, Ferrer identified Pineda and co-accused Sison from mug shots. Only two photographs were shown, creating an impermissibly suggestive procedure.
• Ocular inspection of the bus and medico-legal autopsy corroborated the homicide element.

Defense’s Version and Alibi

Pineda testified he worked at a private residence all day, was paid and went home before the alleged crime, then socialized near his contractor’s home until 9 p.m. Lillian Tan corroborated his presence at the job site and subsequent movements. Efren Quiton recounted that police in Bulacan never implicated Pineda at the time. Co-accused Colet, acquitted by demurrer to evidence, testified he was a passenger, saw the robbery but did not see Pineda among the six perpetrators, and identified the real assailants by name and weapon.

Trial Court’s Findings and Sentence

The RTC found Ferrer’s and Ramos’s in-court testimonies credible, held that robbery with homicide under RPC Article 294 applied (not PD 532), and convicted Pineda of robbery with homicide “by a band.” Pineda was sentenced to death (subsequently commuted under RA 7659), ordered to pay civil indemnities and damages, and to return stolen cash. Colet was acquitted; warrants issued for two co-accused still at large.

Errors Assigned on Appeal

Appellant contended that the trial court erred in:

  1. Accepting positive identification by Ferrer and Ramos despite inconsistencies and suggestive procedures.
  2. Disregarding Colet’s testimony proving Pineda’s absence from the crime scene.
  3. Rejecting the alibi defense.

Standard of Review

While trial court findings on witness credibility are generally accorded deference, they yield when the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or the trial court overlooked facts that would materially affect the outcome.

Analysis on Identity of Perpetrator

The Supreme Court applied the totality-of-circumstances test for photographic identification, considering: opportunity to observe, attention, prior descriptions, certainty, intervening time, and suggestiveness.
• Only two mug shots were shown to Ferrer, improperly focusing attention.
• Ferrer had limited opportunity to see the assailant’s face: he was forced to look forward, threatened with a gun at

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.