REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION
MALOLOS, BULACAN
BRANCH 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPPINES,

Plaintiff

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01

For: Robbery

ALEXANDER DEL TIERRO,

Accused.
x-----------------------------------------x
JUDGMENT
Accused Alexander Del Tierro stands charged before this court for
the crime of robbery penalized under Article 294, paragraph 5 of the
Revised Penal Code based on an Information as follows:

“That on or about the 25th day of August 2007, in Brgy. Dakila, City of
Malolos, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully,
unlawful, and feloniously, with intent to gain and by means of force and
violence, take, rob, grab and carry away with him a belt bag containing cash
amounting to P 1,500.00, belonging to one Krista Salvador, to the damage and
prejudice of the owner thereof, in the aforementioned amount of P 1,500.00.

Contrary to law.”

Upon arraignment on 13 January 2015, accused Alexander Del Tierro,

duly assisted by Atty. Jose Lorenzo C. Tan, pleaded NOT GUILTY to the
aforesaid offense.
On the same day, the pre-trial was conducted pursuant to the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The Prosecution represented by Third
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Ronel U. Buenaventura while the accused
was represented by Atty. Tan.
The Prosecution proceeded to mark their documentary and object
exhibits as follows:
1. Exhibit “A” – Judicial Affidavit of Krista Salvador;
a. Exhibit “A-1” – Page 2 of the Judicial Affidavit;
b. Exhibit “A-2” – Page 3 of the Judicial Affidavit;
i. Exhibit “A-2-A” – Signature of Krista Salvador;
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 2 of 15

c. Exhibit “A-3” – Page 4 of the Judicial Affidavit;

2. Exhibit “B” – Blotter Report No. 75 dated August 25, 2007;
3. Exhibit “C” – Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay;
a. Exhibit “C-1” – Signature of Derek Ramsiy;
b. Exhibit “C-2” – Signature of Jennelyn Recado;
4. Exhibit “D” – Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Krista Salvador;
a. Exhibit “D-1” – Page 2 of the Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Krista
Salvador;
i. Exhibit “D-1-A” – Signature of Krista Salvador; and
5. Exhibit “E” – Strap of belt bag.

The Defense, meanwhile, proceeded to mark their documentary

exhibits as follows:

1. Exhibit “1” – Judicial Affidavit of Krista Salvador;

a. Exhibit “1-A” – Signature of Krista Salvador;
2. Exhibit “2” – Attestation of the Legal Counsel;
a. Exhibit “2-A” – Signature of Counsel for the State Ronel
Buenaventura;
3. Exhibit “3” – Blotter Report No. 75 dated August 25, 2007;
4. Exhibit “4” – Resolution of City Prosecutor Lora Austria;
a. Exhibit “4-A” – Signature of City Prosecutor Lora Austria;
5. Exhibit “5” – Investigation Data Form;
6. Exhibit “6” – Letter of Honorable City Prosecutor as regards the
Duty of Inquest Prosecutor;
7. Exhibit “7” – Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay;
a. Exhibit “7-A” – Signature of Derek Ramsiy;
b. Exhibit “7-B” – Signature of Jennelyn Recado;
8. Exhibit “8” – Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Krista Salvador;
a. Exhibit “8-A” – Question and Answer of the Sinumpaang
Salaysay ni Krista Salvador; and
b. Exhibit “8-B” – Signature of Krista Salvador.

After marking the documentary and object exhibits, the following

stipulations were made:
1. The Prosecution proposed the stipulation as to the identity of the
accused, which the Defense agreed to;
2. The Prosecution proposed the stipulation as to the lawful arrest of
the accused, which the Defense agreed to; and
3. The Defense proposed the stipulation that the court accepted the
authorization presented by Third Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
Ronel U. Buenaventura with respect to the authority granted to
him by the Department of Justice to prosecute the case, which the
Prosecution agreed to.
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 3 of 15

Following the marking of exhibits and stipulations, the Prosecution

then proposed the following issues to be resolved1:
1. Whether or not the accused Alexander Del Tierro committed the crime
of robbery as mentioned in the information; and
2. Whether or not the accused Alexander Del Tierro should be held liable
civilly for the amount lost by the complainant.
Pre-trial having been closed and terminated, the trial on the merits
ensued as regard the aforesaid accused.
Evidence for the Prosecution
The Prosecution presented the complainant, KRISTA SALVADOR, 43
years old, married and a resident of Block 41, Lot 2, Section 7, Phase 1,
Pabahay 2000, Barangay Dakila, Malolos City.
On 25 October 2007 at around 5:00 A.M., while she was walking
with her daughter on a small alley near her house to go the public market,
someone snatched her belt bag containing P 1,500.00 from her back. While
struggling for the possession of her bag, she saw the face of that person
and identified the same as the accused Alexander Del Tierro. The accused
overpowered her and ran away, leaving her with the strap of her belt bag.
She tried to chase the accused to the backside of his house. Unable to catch
up to him, she went to the Barangay Hall to have the incident blottered.
Upon presentation of the Blotter Report that had already been marked as
Exhibit “B” as well as its sub-exhibits, she identified said Blotter Report and
the signature of the Kagawad that signed the Report.
She further stated that that she proceeded to the police station to
report the incident and that the police were able to capture the accused.
She likewise identified the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by
the officers who captured the accused already marked as Exhibit “C”
including its submarkings and the Sinumpaang Salaysay that she executed
in the police station already marked as Exhibit “D” including its
submarkings.
She explained that she was not able to recover the money in the belt
bag and that what was left with her was the strap of her belt bag. She
likewise identified the strap of the said belt bag already marked as Exhibit
“E”, and the Judicial Affidavit she had executed already marked as Exhibit
“A” including its submarkings.
On cross examination, she stated that no one helped her during the
time that the accused was trying to take her belt bag. She likewise noted
that a pair of long nose pliers fell from the accused but neither
remembered the appearance of the pliers nor from what part of the

1
TSN 13 January 2015, p. 16, lines 53 to 58
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 4 of 15

accused’s body did the same came from. She also clarified that she did not
accompany the police to the accused’s house when the latter captured him
as she was waiting in the police station.
The Prosecution no longer presented the officers that arrested the
accused, Derek Ramsiy and Jennelyn Recado, stating that their testimonies
were merely corroborative to that of the complainant. However, the
Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by the two arresting officers
marked Exhibit “C” was offered as evidence.
On 20 January 2015, the Prosecution formally offered its evidence
consisting of Exhibits “A” to “E” including their submarkings which the court
admitted on the same date.
Evidence for the Defense
The Defense presented their lone witness, the accused, ALEXANDER
DEL TIERRO, of legal age, single, and a resident of Block 39, Lot 1, Section 7,
Phase 1, Pabahay 2000, Dakila, Malolos City, Bulacan.
The accused stated he had been living in Pabahay 2000 for 15 years
and that he is currently working in the Planning Department of an
Engineering Firm in Ortigas City as a Design Engineer. His line of work
requires that he be present in the company for extended hours. He told the
court that he does not know the complainant personally and he only
recognizes her since he walks with her at dawn and that he sees her around
the vicinity of his house.
He narrated that he was at work on the day before the incident. He
also claimed that he was asleep at the time of the incident, and he was
awakened when someone was knocking at the door of their house. When
he went out, he saw police officers saying that they wanted to invite him to
their precinct because of a complaint filed against him. He also explained
that he saw the complainant at the precinct. He likewise denied the
allegations of the complainant.
Upon cross examination, the accused clarified that he had been
working in the engineering firm since January 2003, and was a student and
unemployed before January 2003. He also explained that he went with the
police when the latter came to his house because he wanted to clarify the
complaint against him. He further stated that the place of the incident was
approximately 400 meters from his house and that it would take him
around 10 minutes to reach it from his house. He also confided that he did
not file any controverting affidavits to the complaint against him since he
did not have any knowledge regarding the said processes.
The Defense did not offer any more witnesses. They offered the
Comment on the Manifestation with Motion to Quash as evidence. The
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 5 of 15

Prosecution objected to its admission pursuant to Administrative Circular

No. 3-99, dated January 15, 1991. The court resolved to deny the admission
of the said document.
With no more witnesses to present and no documentary evidence
offered despite having marked several documents during pre-trial, the
Defense rested its case. Thus, the present case was deemed submitted for
decision on 20 January 2015.
RULING
I.
For the first issue, the Prosecution sought the court to resolve
whether or not the accused committed the crime of robbery.
After due consideration of testimonies of the witnesses and all the
evidence offered, this Court finds the accused committed the crime of
robbery as defined under Article 294, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal
Code.
First and foremost, it is essential that the identity of the person who
committed the offense be established in order to determine whether an
accused should be held liable for the crime of robbery2. Failure to do so
would indicate that the accused cannot be held guilty beyond reasonable
doubt3. In the present case, it is quite clear that the Prosecution established
the identity of the accused. As shown in the testimony and the Sinumpaang
Salaysay of the complainant (underscored for emphasis):
KRISTA SALVADOR:
Q: The accused in this case by the name Alexander Del Tierro, can you still
recognize him?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Is he present inside the courtroom?
A: Yes Ma’am, he is present.
Q: Will you kindly point to him?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
COURT INTERPRETER: The witness pointed the man on the second bench, left
most.
THE COURT: Please stand.
Q: Anong pangalan mo?
ACCUSED: Alexander Del Tierro po.
xxxx
Q: Why do you know him Madam Witness?
A: Because he was the one who snatched my belt bag4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T: Maaari mo bang isalaysay sa himpilang ito ng pulisya ang buong pangyayari?

2
People v. Delfin Caliso, G.R. No. 183830, 19 October 2011
3
People v. Rolando Pineda, G.R. No. 141644, May 27, 2004
4
TSN 20 January 2015, p. 6, line 35 to p. 7, line 11
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 6 of 15

S: Opo. Noong nasabing petsa oras at lugar habang kami ng aking anak na babae
ay naglalakad papuntang palengke upang mamili ng aking gagawing paninda ay
bigla na lamang may sumulpot sa aking likuran at biglang hinablot ang aking Belt
Bag. Sa dahilang hawak ko po ng mahigpit ang aking belt bag ay hindi po agad ito
na agaw sa akin. Sa pag-aagawan po naming ng suspek ng aking belt bag ay
napalingon po ako ako sa kanya at nakilala ko po ang suspek na si ALEXANDER
DEL TIERRO sa totoo niyang pangalan …5.

Likewise, accused was identified by the arresting officers who came

to his home because the former introduced himself as Alexander Del Tierro
after he was lawfully arrested. The accused was also identified by the
complainant when he was brought to the police precinct after being
arrested6.

Now, with respect to the issue of the whether or not the accused
committed the crime, it is essential that the law covering the felony be
considered. Upon examination, Article 295 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that:
Art. 295. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. —
Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of
any person shall suffer:
xxxx
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in
its medium period in other cases. (As amended by R. A. 18).

Additionally, Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime
of robbery and who are guilty of the same, as follows:
Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery. — Any person who, with intent to gain, shall
take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or
intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty of
robbery.

Following the provisions of Article 293 , the following elements must

be proven in order to determine whether an individual has committed the
crime of robbery:
1. That there be
a. The taking of personal property
b. Belonging to another;
2. That there is an unlawful taking of said property;
3. That such taking must be with the intent to gain; and
4. That there is violence against or intimidation of any person, or
force upon anything7.

5
Exhibit “D-1”- Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Krista Salvador
6
Exhibit “C” - Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay
7
Reyes, Luis B. (2012). The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law Book Two (Articles 114 to 367). Quezon City:
Rex Printing Company. Page 656
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 7 of 15

For the first element, it is required that the property taken is

personal property and that it belongs to another. In the present case, it is
quite clear that the property taken is personal property, being in the form
of a belt bag containing money. Likewise, it was established that the
property belonged to another, in this case the complainant. As stated by
the complainant (underscored for emphasis):
KRISTA SALVADOR:
Q: Where did you come from?
A: I was from our house with my daughter and went out to buy things from the
market when suddenly; someone snatched my belt bag from the back. Then, I
struggled with him for the possession of the bag.8
xxxx
Q: What was the content of the belt bag?
A: It was containing 1,500 pesos.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What were you doing on the 25th of August 2007, at 5:00 AM?
A: I was walking in a small alley near my house in Sec.-7, Phase 1, Pabahay 2000,
to go to the market to buy some things to be sold as my merchandise. I was
carrying a belt bag with P 1,500.00 in it.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T: Bakit nais mong magdemanda laban kay ALEXANDER DEL TIERRO?
S: Dahil po sa ginawa nitong PANG-I-SNATCHED ng aking Belt Bag na may lamang
pera na halagang P 1,500.00.11

For the second element, it must be shown that the taking of the
property in question should be unlawful. It has been ruled that the unlawful
taking is an essential element12 to the commission of the crime of robbery.
In cases of robbery with violence against or intimidation against persons,
the element of unlawful taking becomes completed moment that
possession of the said property is obtained by the culprit, regardless of the
fact that accused was not able to dispose of the property taken13. In the
present case, it is quite clear that the taking of the accused of the property
in question was unlawful and the accused managed to take the same, as
shown by the testimony, sworn statement and the judicial affidavit of the
complainant as follows (underscored for emphasis):

KRISTA SALVADOR:
Q: Where did you come from?
A: I was from our house with my daughter and went out to buy things from the
market when suddenly; someone snatched my belt bag from the back. Then, I
struggled with him for the possession of the bag.
Q: And who is that person?

8
TSN 20 January 2015, p. 7, lines 34 to 38
9
Ibid, p. 8, lines 4 to 5
10
Judicial Affidavit of Krista Salvador, p. 2
11
Exhibit “D-1” – Page 2 of the Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Krista Salvador
12
US vs Atienza, 2 Phil. 232
13
Brown vs. State, 61 Tex. Cr. 334, 136 SW 265
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 8 of 15

A: It was Alexander Del Tierro, Ma’am.14

xxxx
Q: What happened after that?
A: After that, Alexander Del Tierro ran away and I ran to chase him; but, what
was left was only the strap of the belt bag
Q: To what direction did he run?
A: He was running to the backside of his house but I wasn’t able to catch him15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What transpired during that time?
A: While I was walking, suddenly someone approached me from the back and
immediately grabbed my belt bag.
Q: How were you able to tell who that person is?
A: Because I was holding my bag tightly, it was not quickly grabbed away from
me …
xxxx
Q: What happened to your struggle with the suspect?
A: Alexander prevailed because he was far stronger than I was. He was able to
take away my belt bag. What was left to me was the strap of my belt bag16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T: Maaari mo bang isalaysay sa himpilang ito ng pulisya ang buong pangyayari?
S: Opo. Noong nasabing petsa oras at lugar habang kami ng aking anak na babae
ay naglalakad papuntang palengke upang mamili ng aking gagawing paninda ay
bigla na lamang may sumulpot sa aking likuran at biglang hinablot ang aking Belt
Bag. Sa dahilang hawak ko po ng mahigpit ang aking belt bag ay hindi po agad ito
na agaw sa akin. Sa pag-aagawan po naming ng suspek ng aking belt bag ay
napalingon po ako ako sa kanya at nakilala ko po ang suspek na si ALEXANDER
DEL TIERRO sa totoo niyang pangalan … Dahil po sa malakas itong si ALEXANDER
DEL TIERRO ay nadaig niya po ako sa aming pang-aagawan ng aking belt bag kung
kaya nakuha niya ito sa akin … 17.

Third, the element of intent to gain or animus lucrandi must be

proven. Animus lucrandi is an essential element that distinguishes the crime
of robbery from other crimes like grave coercion, and in the absence of
such element, the crime committed would be the latter and not robbery18.
Animus lucrandi, being an internal act, cannot be established by direct
evidence and is usually established by the circumstances of the case 19.
However, animus lucrandi may be presumed when the unlawful taking is
proven20 and same is presumed to be alleged when the information charges
that there was an unlawful taking and appropriation of the objects subject
to the crime of robbery21. Whether or not the accused actually gained from
taking the property is immaterial because what the law considers as
material is the intent to gain22.

14
TSN 20 January 2015, p. 7, lines 34 to 53
15
Ibid, p. 8, lines 7 to 13
16
Exhibit “A” - Judicial Affidavit of Krista Salvador, p. 2
17
Exhibit “D-1”- Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Krista Salvador
18
Pedro Consulta vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179462, 12 February 2009
19
People of the Philippines vs. Sia Teb Ban, G.R. No. L-31695, 26 November 1929
20
People of the Philippines vs. Isabelo Puno y Guevarra, G.R. No. 97471, 17 February 1993
21
People of the Philippines vs. Donato del Rosario, G.R. No. 131036, 20 June 2001
22
People of the Philippines vs. Luisito Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, 8 June 2004
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 9 of 15

In present case, it is clear that the accused had unlawful taken the
questioned property. The complainant stated that someone had tried to
snatch her belt bag and that there was a struggle for the same until the
accused managed to take the bag. Based on these statements, it would be
appropriate to presume that there was intent to gain on the part of the
accused when he obtained the said belt bag. Such element was clearly
established based on the above quoted testimony and is just as well clearly
alleged in the information, quoted as follows (underscored for emphasis):

“That on or about the 25th day of August 2007, in Brgy. Dakila, City of
Malolos, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully,
unlawful, and feloniously, with intent to gain and by means of force and
violence, take, rob, grab and carry away with him a belt bag containing cash
amounting to P 1,500.00, belonging to one Krista Salvador, to the damage and
prejudice of the owner thereof, in the aforementioned amount of P 1,500.00.”

The final element to be established for the crime of robbery under

paragraph 5 of Article 295 is that there be force or intimidation exerted
against persons in the taking of the property. Violence is defined to be the
exertion of physical force especially when unlawfully exercised23. If there
was no violence committed against the person, as in the case where a bag
was snatched and there no struggle involved, then crime committed would
be theft and not robbery24.

In the present case, however, we find that there was indeed violence
exerted against the person of the complainant when the accused
attempted to take the belt bag from him. The accused used force to try to
snatch the belt bag. And there was ensuing struggle between the accused
and the complainant ending in the accused divesting the complainant of
the possession of the bag and leaving her with the strap of the bag25, as
shown below (underscored for emphasis):

KRISTA SALVADOR:
Q: Where did you come from?
A: I was from our house with my daughter and went out to buy things from the
market when suddenly; someone snatched my belt bag from the back. Then, I
struggled with him for the possession of the bag.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What transpired during that time?
A: While I was walking, suddenly someone approached me from the back and
immediately grabbed my belt bag.
xxxx
Q: How were you able to tell who that person is?

23
Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, p. 1705
24
People v. Adame, CA 40 O.G. Supp. No. 12
25
Exhibit “E” – Strap of the belt bag
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 10 of 15

A: Because I was holding my bag tightly, it was not quickly grabbed away from
me …
xxxx
Q: What happened to your struggle with the suspect?
A: Alexander prevailed because he was far stronger than I was. He was able to
take away my belt bag. What was left to me was the strap of my belt bag26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T: Maaari mo bang isalaysay sa himpilang ito ng pulisya ang buong pangyayari?
S: Opo. Noong nasabing petsa oras at lugar habang kami ng aking anak na babae
ay naglalakad papuntang palengke upang mamili ng aking gagawing paninda ay
bigla na lamang may sumulpot sa aking likuran at biglang hinablot ang aking Belt
Bag. Sa dahilang hawak ko po ng mahigpit ang aking belt bag ay hindi po agad ito
na agaw sa akin … Dahil po sa malakas itong si ALEXANDER DEL TIERRO ay nadaig
niya po ako sa aming pang-aagawan ng aking belt bag kung kaya nakuha niya ito
sa akin … 27.

The accused meanwhile, denied the allegations against him and

raised the defense of alibi claiming that he was asleep when the incident
took place, as quoted below:

ALEXANDER DEL TIERRO:

Q: Would you admit the allegation in the complaint, in the Judicial Affidavit of
Krista Salvador?
A: No, Sir28.
xxxx
Q: Mr. Witness, where were you on 25 August 2007 at around 5 am?
A: I was at home and still sleeping at that time29.

Time and time again, the Supreme Court had consistently ruled that
alibi is a weak defense, being unreliable and easy to fabricate and
manufacture30. In order for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused
must show that not only was he somewhere else at time the crime took
place but it was also physically impossible to be present at the scene of the
crime31. If not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, the defense
of alibi is negative and self-serving which does not deserve weight in law32.
This weakness of alibi becomes even more apparent when the accused fails
to present proof to show such physical impossibility such as witnesses to
corroborate his defense33.

In this case, the accused failed to prove that it was physically

impossible for him to be present at the scene of the crime during the time
of the incident. The distance of the scene of the crime from his house was

26
Exhibit “A” - Judicial Affidavit of Krista Salvador, p. 2
27
Exhibit “D-1”- Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Krista Salvador
28
TSN 20 January 2015, p. 22, lines 8 to 10
29
ibid, p. 21, lines 25 to 27
30
People vs. Teofilo Obando, G.R. No. 72742, 12 February 1990
31
People of the Philippines vs. Jesemiel Mosquerra, G.R. No. 129209, 9 August 2001
32
People of the Philippines vs. Ramil Rarugal, G.R. No. 188603, 16 January 2013
33
People of the Philippines vs. Agripino Fontanosa, G.R. No. L-19421, 29 May 1967
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 11 of 15

more or less 400 meters and is traversable within a span of 10 minutes. As

stated below (underscored for emphasis):

ALEXANDER DEL TIERRO:

Q: Is the area of Section 7, Phase 1, Pabahay 2000 near your house? Where
Krista was robbed?
A: A bit far, Ma’am. Not too near but kind of far. The place where the incident
happened is about 400 meters far from our house.
Q: If you go to that place, how many minutes it would be?
xxxx
Q: Answer. If you go to that place, how many minutes?
A: About 10 minutes, Ma’am.
xxxx
Q: So, it is not physically impossible for you to be at that place?
A: Yes, Ma’am if I were not sleeping at that time34.

As ruled by the Supreme Court, a distance traversable in 10 minutes

by an individual is not physically impossible to comply with the
requirements for appreciation of the defense of alibi35. In fact, it has been
ruled that even a distance of one and a half kilometers cannot be
considered as physically impossible to traverse within a reasonable time36.
The accused did not even present any witnesses that would corroborate his
alibi, nor did he offer any evidence to buttress his claims.

Additionally, the exhibits that were marked during the pre-trial

conference that could have substantiated his claims were not even formally
offered by the Defense. Any evidence, even if marked, shall not be
considered in any manner as evidence and only the testimonial evidence
shall be considered37. Thus, in the absence of any other proof to
substantiate his claim, the defense of alibi must necessarily fail.

Alibi, being inherently weak, can be outweighed by the positive

identification that is categorical, consistent and untainted by ill motive38. In
the present case, the demeanor of the complainant shows no ill motive
against the accused based on the testimony of the former. The positive
identification of the accused was shown in the Sinumpaang Salaysay when
the accused was brought to the police station39. The Judicial Affidavit of the
complainant also identified the accused, as follows:

KRISTA SALVADOR:
Q: How were you able to tell who that person is?

34
TSN 20 January 2015, p. 25 line 35 to p. 26 line 1
35
People of the Philippines vs. Anastacio Amistoso, G.R. No. 201447, 9 January 2013
36
People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Hillado, G.R. No. 122838, 24 May 1999
37
Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Sps. Lorenzo and Florentina Parocha, G.R. No. 155483 27 April 2007
38
People vs. Rarugal, supra.
39
Exhibit “D”
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 12 of 15

A: Because I was holding my belt bag tightly, it was not quickly grabbed away
from me. In the course of our struggle, I inadvertedly looked at the face of the
suspect, whom I immediately recognized as Alexander Del Tierro40.

Furthermore, the complainant positively identifed the accused when

the former was under direct examination, as stated below:

KRISTA SALVADOR:
Q: The accused in this case by the name Alexander Del Tierro, can you still
recognize him?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Is he present inside the courtroom?
A: Yes Ma’am, he is present.
Q: Will you kindly point to him?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
COURT INTERPRETER: The witness pointed the man on the second bench, left
most.
THE COURT: Please stand.
Q: Anong pangalan mo?
ACCUSED: Alexander Del Tierro po.
xxxx
Q: Why do you know him Madam Witness?
A: Because he was the one who snatched my belt bag41.

Hence, in light of the evidence presented by the Prosecution and in

the failure of the Defense to present any controverting evidence to
substantiate his alibi, the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of robbery.

After determining the accused guilty of the offense by which he is

charged, it is imperative to determine the corresponding penalty for the
crime in consideration of the present circumstances.

Under Article 294, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, the

penalty to be imposed for the crime of robbery when it involves cases not
covered by paragraphs 1 to 4 shall be prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its medium period. Using the graduated scale of
penalties, the period of imprisonment shall be 4 years, 2 months and 1 day
to a period of 10 years42.

Additionally, under paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Revised Penal

Code), the penalty that should be imposed should be in the medium period
in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances if the penalty
imposed is composed of three periods (maximum, medium and minimum).

40
Exhibit “A” – Judicial Affidavit of Krista Salvador, p. 2
41
TSN 20 January 2015, p. 6, line 35 to p. 7, line 11
42
Reyes, supra. p. 1082
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 13 of 15

Following the provisions of the same law, the penalty for robbery is
composed of three periods, prision correccional in its maximum period,
prision mayor in its minimum period, and prision mayor in its medium
period. And following the facts presented by the both parties, there
appears to be no mitigating or aggravating circumstances present or
alleged. Thus the appropriate penalty would be prision mayor in its
minimum period, which under the graduated scale of penalties would be 6
years and 1 day to 8 years43.

Furthermore, it is also clear that the imposable penalty falls within

scope of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or Act No. 4103 as amended by
Act No. 4225, not being among the offenses excluded under Section 2 of
the same law.

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused would be

sentenced to an indeterminate sentence where the maximum would be
that which can be imposed by law in view of the attending circumstances
and that which could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code 44.
In this case, the proper penalty as Maximum under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law would be prision mayor in its minimum which is 6 years and 1
day to 8 years of imprisonment.

Under the same law, the minimum penalty to be imposed would be

the penalty within the range of penalties next lower in degree prescribed
by the Revised Penal Code for the offense without reference to periods45.
Thus, in this case, the Minimum penalty would be anywhere within the
range of prision correccional, which is 6 months and 1 day to 6 years46.

Following a similar case where the offense committed was also

robbery under Article 294, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, the
Supreme Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months
of prision correccional as Minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as
Maximum47. In view of the similar circumstances, this court finds the same
penalty as appropriate for the crime committed.

II.
For the second issue, the Prosecution sought the court to resolve
whether or not the accused should be held civilly liable.

43
Ibid
44
Sec. 1, Indeterminate Sentence Law
45
Ibid
46
Article 27 as amended by R.A. 7659, Revised Penal Code
47
Eliseo Eduarte Y. Coscolla vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176566, 16 April 2009
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 14 of 15

After due consideration of facts and evidence presented, the court

finds that the accused should be held civilly liable.

Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal, every person found to be

criminally liable shall also be deemed criminally liable. Likewise, Article 20
of the New Civil Code provides that every person who, contrary to law, shall
cause damage to another, shall indemnify the same. Civil liability in criminal
law includes the restitution of the thing or property taken, reparation of the
damages caused, and the indemnity for the consequential damages48.

In this case, the accused had been found criminally liable for robbery
after the Prosecution had proven all the elements necessary for the
commission of the offense to which the former is charged. Correspondingly,
in view of said criminal liability, the accused is held to be civilly liable in
accordance to the Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code.

In the cases of robbery, civil liability of the accused mainly involves

the restitution of the property taken and in the event that there is failure to
return the property, the accused shall be obliged to make reparation for
their value, taking into consideration the price and the sentimental value of
the property to the offended parties49. Additionally, restitution of the
amount taken is ordered in cases the object taken is money50.

In the present case, the Prosecution managed to establish the

amount the accused took from complainant was P 1,500.00, as follows:

KRISTA SALVADOR:
Q: What was the content of the belt bag?
A: It was containing 1,500 pesos.51
…………………
Q: What were you doing on the 25th of August 2007, at 5:00 AM?
A: I was walking in a small alley near my house in Sec.-7, Phase 1, Pabahay 2000,
to go to the market to buy some things to be sold as my merchandise. I was
carrying a belt bag with P 1,500.00 in it.52

In line with the rulings of the Supreme Court, the accused is hereby
ordered to restitute to the complainant the amount P 1,500.00
representing the amount taken from her.

48
Art. 104, Revised Penal Code
49
People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Evangelio y Gallo (citing Art. 105 RPC), G.R. No. 181902, 31 August
2011
50
People of the Philippines vs. Samuel Algarme, G.R. No. 175978, 12 February 2009
51
Ibid, p. 8, lines 4 to 5
52
Judicial Affidavit of Krista Salvador, p. 2
CRIM. CASE NO. 15-01
People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Del Tierro
Page 15 of 15

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered finding

the accused, ALEXANDER DEL TIERRO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of robbery penalized under Article 294, paragraph 5 of the
Revised Penal Code.

Accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the

indeterminate penalty of Four (4) years and Two (2) months of prision
correccional as minimum to Eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum.

Additionally, the accused is hereby order to pay the complainant,

Krista Salvador, the amount of P 1,500.00 by way of restitution.

SO ORDERED

Promulgated this 10th day of February 2015. City of Malolos.

RICHARD ALLAN A. LIM

Presiding Judge