You are on page 1of 32

G.R. No.

209342 That on or about the 22nd of June 2000, in the Municipality of Binangonan,
Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually
vs. helping and aiding one another, armed with handguns, by means of
CRISENTE PEPAÑO NUÑEZ, Accused-Appellant violence against or intimidation of the persons of Felix V. Regencia,
Alexander C. Diaz and Byron G. Dimatulac, with intent to gain, did then
DECISION and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away the
money amounting to ₱5,000.00 belonging to the Caltex gasoline station
owned by the family of Felix V. Regencia to their damage and prejudice;
LEONEN, J.:
that on the occasion of the said robbery and to insure their purpose, the
said accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping and aiding
To convict an accused, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to present a one another, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
positive identification by a witness during trial due to the frailty of human feloniously attack, assault and shoot said Felix V. Regencia, Alexander C.
memory. It must also show that the identified person matches the original Diaz and Byron G. Dimatulac on the different parts of their bodies, thereby
description made by that witness when initially reporting the crime. The inflicting gunshot wounds which directly caused their deaths.4
unbiased character of the process of identification by witnesses must
likewise be shown.
At first, only Marciales and Nabia were arrested, arraigned, and tried. In its
December 9, 2005 Decision,5 the Regional Trial Court found the offense of
Criminal prosecution may result in the severe consequences of deprivation robbery with homicide as alleged in the Information, along with Marciales
of liberty, property, and, where capital punishment is imposed, life. and Nabia's conspiracy with Pobre and Jun to commit this offense, to have
Prosecution that relies solely on eyewitness identification must be been established. Thus, it pronounced Marciales and Nabia guilty beyond
approached meticulously, cognizant of the inherent frailty of human reasonable doubt and sentenced them to death.6 The case against Pobrn
memory. Eyewitnesses who have previously made admissions that they and Jun was archived subject to revival upon their apprehension.7
could not identify the perpetrators of a crime but, years later and after a
highly suggestive process of presenting suspects, contradict themselves
On July 2, 2006, accused-appellant Nunez was apprehended by the
and claim that they can identify the perpetrator with certainty are grossly
Philippine National Police Regional Intelligence Office on the premise that
wanting in credibility. Prosecution that relies solely on these eyewitnesses'
he was the same ''Paul Pobre" identified in the Inforn1ation. Upon
testimonies fails to discharge its burden of proving an accused's guilt
arraigru11ent, Nuñez moved that the case against him be dismissed as he
beyond reasonable doubt.
was not the "Paul Pobre" charged in the Information. However, prosecution
witnesses identified him as one (1) of the alleged robbers and his motion
This resolves an appeal from the assailed June 26, 2013 Decision1 of the to dismiss was denied. The information was then atnended to state
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04474, which affirmed with Nuñez's name in lieu of "Paul Pobre."8
modification the February 24, 2010 Decision2 of Branch 67, Regional Trial
Court, Binangonan, Rizal. This Regional Trial Court Decision found
During trial, the prosecution manifested that it would be adopting the
accused-appellant Crisente Pepaño Nuñez (Nuñez) guilty beyond
evidence already presented in the course of Marciales and Nabia's trial.
reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.
Apart from this, it also recalled prosecution witnesses Ronalyn Cruz (Cruz)
and Relen Perez (Perez). In their testimonies, they both positively
In an Information, George Marciales (Marciales), Orly Nabia (Nabia), Paul identified Nunez as among the perpetrators of the crime.9
Pobre (Pobre), and a certain alias "Jun'' (Jun) were charged with robbery
with homicide, under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code,3 as follows:
Cruz's testimony recounted that in the evening of June 22, 2000, she was
working as an attendant at the Caltex gasoline station mentioned in the

1
Infonnation. She was then sitting near the g1;1,soline pumps with her co- To convict Nunez of robbery with homicide requires proof beyond
employees, the deceased Byron G. Dimatulac (Dimatulac) and reasonable doubt that he: (1) took personal property which belongs to
prosecution witness Pierez. They noticed that the station's office was being another; (2) the taking is unlawful; (3) the taking is done with intent to gain;
held up. There were two (2) persons poking guns at and asking for money and (4) the taking was accomplished with the use of violence against or
from the deceased Alex Diaz (Diaz) and Felix Regencia (Regencia). intimidation of persons or by using force upon things. Article 294(1) of the
Regencia hancied money to one (1) of the robbers while the other robber Revised Penal Code and (5) when by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
reached for a can of oil. Regencia considered this as enough of a the crime of homicide shall have been committed[.] The facts are simple.
distraction to put up a fight. Regencia and Diaz grappled with the robbers. Nuñez along with Marciales and Nabia robbed the Tayuman Caltex gas
In the scuffle, Diaz shouted. At the sound of this, two (2) men ran to the station of ₱5,000.00 and some cans of oil. For such booty, he[,] along with
office. The first was identified to be Marciales and the second, according his fellow thieves[,] shot and killed Felix Regencia, Alexander C. Diaz and
to Cruz, was Nunez. Dimatulac also ran to the office to assist Regencia Byron G. Dimatulac. He was positively and unequivocally identified by
and Oiaz. Marciales then shot Dimatulac while Nunez shot Diaz. Cruz and Renel Cruz and Ronalyn Perez as [one] of the perpetrators even as he
Perez sought refuge in a computer shop. About 10 to 15 minutes later, they tried to hide behind another name and was arrested later. He ran but could
returned to the gasoline station where they found Diaz already dead, not hide as the long arm of the law finally caught up with him. As a defense,
Dimatulac gasping for breath, and Regencia wounded and crawling. By he can only offer his weak alibi which cannot offset the positive
then, the robbers were rushing towards the highway.10 identification of the prosecution witnesses. His guilt was proven beyond
reasonable doubt.14
Perez's testimony recounted that in the evening of June 22, 2000, she was
working as a sales clerk in the Caltex gasoline station adverted to in the The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment, as follows:
Information. While seated with Cruz near the gasoline pumps, she saw
Nuñez, who was pointing a gun at Diaz, and another man who was pointing Based on the foregoing, we find accused Crisente Pepaño Nuñez
a gun at Regencia, inside the gasoline station's office. Diaz shouted that
they were being robbed. Another man then rushed to the gasoline station's GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide
office, as did her co-employee Dimatulac. A commotion ensued where the under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code and sentences (sic) him
robber identified as Marciales shot Dimatulac, Diaz, and Regencia. They to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and order him to pay:
then ran to their employer's house.11
1. The heirs of Felix Regencia Php. 151,630.00 expenses for the wake,
Nunez testified in his own defense and recalled the circumstances of his burial lot and funeral service; Php. 75,000.00 death indemnity; Php.
apprehension. He stated that when he was apprehended on July 2, 2006, 5,000.00 money stolen from the victim; exemplary damages of Php.
he was on his way to his aunt's fish store where he was helping since 1999 50,000.00; and Php. 2,214,000.00 unearned income;
when a man approached him. He was then dragged and mauled. With his
face covered, he was boarded on a vehicle and brought to Camp Vicente
2. The heirs of Alexander Diaz Php. 20,000.00 expenses for funeral
Lim in Laguna. He further claimed that on June 22, 2000, he was in Muzon,
service; Php. 75,000.00 death indemnity; Php. 50,000.00 exemplary
Taytay, Rizal with his aunt at her fish store until about 5:00 p.m. before
damages; and Php. 1,774,080.00 unearned income;
going home. At home, his aunt's son fetched him to get pails from the store
and bring them to his aunt's house.12
3. The heirs of Byron Dimatulac Php. 18,000.00 for funeral service; Php.
75,000.00 death indemnity; Php. 50,000.00 exemplary damages; and Php.
On February 24, 2010, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision13
966,240.00 unearned income[;] and
finding Nunez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.
This four (4)-page Decision incorporated the original Regional Trial Court
December 9, 2005 Decision and added the following singular paragraph in 4. The costs.
explaining Nunez's supposed complicity:
2
Let the case against alias "Jun" who remains at large be archived. Contrary to the conclusions of the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial
Court, this Court finds that it has not been established beyond reasonable
SO ORDERED.15 doubt that accused-appellant Crisente Pepaño Nuñez is thy same person
identified as Paul Pobre. Thus, this Court reverses the courts a quo and
On March 5, 2010, Nuñez fifed his Notice of Appeal.16 acquits accused-appellant Crisente Pepano Nunez.

On June 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed Decision17 The prosecution's case rises and falls on the testimonies of eyewitnesses
affirming Nunez's conviction, with modification to the awards of moral and Cruz and Perez. The necessity of their identification of Nunez is so
exemplary damages, as follows: manifest that the prosecution saw it fit to recall them to the stand, even as
it merely adopted the evidence already presented in the trial of Marciales
and Nabia. Cruz's and Perez's testimonies centered on their supposed
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED
certainty as to how it was Nuñez himself, excluding any other person, who
for lack of merit. The Decision dated February 24, 2010 of the Regional
participated in the robbery and homicide.
Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 67, in Criminal Case No. 00-473
is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Crisente
Pepaño Nuñez is ordered to pay ₱75,000.00 as moral damages and This Court finds this supposed certainty and the premium placed on it by
₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages each to the heirs of Felix Regencia, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court to be misplaced.
the heirs of Alexander Diaz and the heirs of Byron Dimatulac.
I
SO ORDERED. 18

There are two (2) principal witnesses who allegedly identified accused-
Nuñez then filed his Notice of Appeal.19 appellant as the same Pobre who participated in the robbery holdup. When
Cruz, the first witness, was initially put on the witness stand, she asserted
that she could not recall any of the features of Pobre. After many years,
The Court of Appeals elevated the records of this case to this Court on
with the police presenting her with accused-appellant, she positively
October 22, 2013 pursuant to its Resolution dated July 23, 2013. The
identified him as the missing perpetrator. The second principal witness'
Resolution gave due course to Nuñez's Notice of Appeal.20
testimony on the alleged participation of accused-appellant is so
fundamentally at variance with that of the other principal witness. The
In its Resolution21 dated December 4, 2013, this Court noted the records prosecution did not account for the details of the presentation of accused·
forwarded by the Court of Appeals and informed the parties that they may appellant to the two (2) witnesses after he was arrested. Finally, these
file their supplemental briefs. However, both parties manifested that they witnesses' alleged positive identification occurred almost eight (8) years,
would no longer do so.22 for the first witness, and almost nine (9) years, for the second witness, from
the time of the commission of the offense.
The occurrence of the robbery occasioned by the killing of Regencia, Diaz,
and Dimatulac is no longer in issue as it has been established in the The frailty of human memory is a scientific fact. The danger of inordinate
original proceedings which resulted in the conviction of Marciales and reliance on human memory in criminal proceedings, where conviction
Nabia. results in the possible deprivation of liberty, property, and even life, is
equally established.
All that remains in issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not
accused-appellant Crisente Pepaño Nuñez is the same person, earlier Human memory does not record events like a video recorder. In the first
identified as Paul Pobre, who acted in conspiracy with Marciales and place, human memory is more selective than a video camera. The sensory
Nabia. environment contains a vast amount of information, but the memory
3
process perceives and accurately records only a very small percentage of The problem of eyewitness reliability could not be more clearly
that information. Second, because the act of remembering is documented. The painstaking work of the Innocence Project, Brandon
reconstructive, akin to putting puzzle pieces together, human memory can Garrett, and others who have documented wrongful convictions,
change in dramatic and unexpected ways because of the passage of time participated in the exonerations of the victims, and documented the role of
or subsequent events, such as exposure to "postevent" information like flawed evidence of all sorts has clearly and repeatedly revealed the two-
conversations with other witnesses or media reports. Third, memory can pronged problem of unreliability for eyewitness evidence: (1) eyewitness
also be altered through the reconstruction process. Questioning a witness identifications are subject to substantial error, and (2) observer judgments
about what he or she perceived and requiring the witness to reconstruct of witness accuracy are likewise subject to substantial error.27
the experience can cause the witness memory to change by unconsciously
blending the actual fragments of memory of the event with information The bifurcated difficulty of misplaced reliance on eyewitness identification
provided during the memory retrieval process.23 is borne not only by the intrinsic limitations of human memory as the basic
apparatus on which the entire exercise of identification operates. It is as
Eyewitness identification, or what our jurisprudence commendably refers much the result of and is exacerbated by extrinsic factors such as
to as "positive identification," is the bedrock of many pronouncements of environmental factors, flawed procedures, or the mere passage of time:
guilt. However, eyewitness identification is but a product of flawed human
memory. In an expansive examination of 250 cases of wrongful convictions More than 100 years of eyewitness science has supported other
where convicts were subsequently exonerated by DNA testing, Professor conclusions as well. First, the ability to match faces to photographs (even
Brandon Garett (Professor Garett) noted that as much as 190 or 76% of when the target is present while the witness inspects the lineup or
these Wrongful convictions were occasioned by flawed eyewitness comparison photo) is poor and peaks at levels far below what might be
identifications.24 Another observer has more starkly characterized considered reasonable doubt. Second, eyewitness accuracy is further
eyewitness identifications as ''the leading cause of wrongful convictions."25 degraded by pervasive environmental characteristics typical · of many
criminal cases such as: suboptimal lighting; distance; angle of view;
Yet, even Professor Garrett's findings are not novel. The fallibility of disguise; witness distress; and many other encoding conditions. Third,
eyewitness identification has been recognized and has been the subject of memory is subject to distortion due to a variety of influences not under the
concerted scientific study for more than a century: control of law enforcement that occur between the criminal event and
identification procedures and during such procedures. Fourth, the ability of
This seemingly staggering rate of involvement of eyewitness errors in those who must assess the accuracy of eyewitness testimony is poor for a
wrongful convictions is, unfortunately, no surprise. Previous studies have variety of reasons. Witnesses' ability to report on many issues affecting or
likewise found eyewitness errors to be implicated in the majority of cases reflecting accuracy is flawed and subject to distortion (e.g., reports of
of wrongful conviction. But Garrett's analysis went farther than these duration of observation. distance, attention, confidence, and others).
previous studies. He not only documented that eyewitness errors occurred thereby providing a flawed basis for others' judgments of accuracy.28
in his cases. He also tried to determine why they occurred - an issue
eyewitness science has investigated for over 100 years.26 Likewise, decision-makers such as jurists and judges, who are experts in
law, procedure, and logic, may simply not know better than what their
The dangers of the misplaced primacy of eyewitness identification are two backgrounds and acquired inclinations permit:
(2)-pronged: on one level, eyewitness identifications are inherently prone
to error; on another level, the appreciation by observers, such as jurors, Additionally, the limits and determinants of performance for facial
judges, and law enforcement officers of how an eyewitness identifies recognition are beyond the knowledge of attorneys, judges, and jurors. The
supposed culprits is just as prone to error: traditional safeguards such as cross-examination are not effective and
cannot be effective in the absence of accurate knowledge of the limits and
determinants of witness performance among both the cross-examiners

4
and the jurors who must judge the witness. Likewise, cross-examination In Wade, the United States Supreme Court noted that the factors judges
cannot be effective if the witness reports elicited by cross-examination are should evaluate in deciding the independent source question include:
flawed: for example, with respect to factors such as original witnessing
conditions (e.g., duration of exposure), post-event influences (e.g., [T]he prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act, the existence of
conversations with co-witnesses), or police suggestion (e.g., repo1is of any discrepancy between any pre-lineup description and the defendant's
police comments or behaviors during identification procedures).29 actual description, any identification prior to lineup of another person, the
identification by picture of the defendant prior to the lineup, failure to
II identify the defendant on a prior occasion, and the lapse of time between
the alleged act and the lineup identification."36
Legal traditions in various jurisdictions have been responsive to the
scientific reality of the frailty of eyewitness identification. Nine (9) months later, in Simmons v. United States, the United States
Supreme Court calibrated its approach by "focusing in that case on the
In the United States, the Supreme Court "ruled for the first time that the overall reliability of the identification evidence rather than merely the flaws
Constitution requires suppression of some identification evidence"30 in in the identification procedure."
three (3) of its decisions, all rendered on June 12, 1967-United States v.
Wade,31 Gilbert v. California, 32 and Stovall v. Denno.33 Stovall emphasized Ultimately, the Court concluded there was no due process violation in
that such suppression, when appropriate, was "a matter of due process."34 admitting the evidence because there was little doubt that the witnesses
were actually correct in their identification of Simmons. Scholars have
Until the latter half of the twentieth century, the general rule in the United frequently characterized Simmons as the beginning of the Court's
States was that any problems with the quality of eyewitness identification unraveling of the robust protection it had offered in Stovall; while Stovall
evidence went to the weight, not the admissibility, of that evidence and that provided a per se rule of exclusion for evidence derived from flawed
the jury bore the ultimate responsibility for assessing the credibility and procedures, Simmons rejected this categorical approach in favor of a
reliability of an eyewitness's identification. In a trilogy of landmark cases reliability analysis that would often allow admission of eyewitness evidence
released on the same day in 1967, however, the Supreme Court ruled for even when an identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive.37
the first time that the Constitution requires suppression of some
identification evidence. In United States v. Wade and Gilbert v. California, In more recent Supreme Court decisions, the United States has "reaffirmed
the Court held that a post-indictment lineup is a critical stage in a criminal its shift toward a reliability analysis, as opposed to a focus merely on
prosecution, and, unless the defendant waives his Sixth Amendment problematic identification procedures" beginning in 1972 through Neil v.
rights, defense counsel's absence from such a procedure requires Biggers:38
suppression of evidence from the lineup. The court also ruled, however,
that even when the lineup evidence itself must be suppressed, a witness The Biggers Court stated that, at least in a case in which the confrontation
would be permitted to identify the defendant in court if the prosecution and trial had taken place before Stovall, identification evidence would be
could prove the witness had an independent source for his identification ... admissible, even if there had been an unnecessarily suggestive procedure,
so long as the evidence was reliable under the totality of the
…. circumstances. To inform its reliability analysis, the Biggers Court
articulated five factors it considered relevant to the inquiry:
In Stovall v. Denno, the Court held that, regardless of whether a
defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were in1plicated or violated, some [(l)] the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the
identification procedures are "so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive crime, [(2)] the witness' degree of attention, [(3)] the accuracy of the
to irreparable mistaken identification" that eyewitness evidence must be witness' prior description of the criminal, [(4)] the level of certainty
suppressed as a matter of due process.35 (Citations omitted)
5
demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and [(5)] the length of police to identify people in connection with the investigation of offences
time between the crime and the confrontation. and the keeping of accurate and reliable criminal records" and covers
eyewitness identifications. This Code puts in place measures advanced by
The Biggers Court clearly proclaimed that the "likelihood of the corpus of research in enhancing the reliability of eyewitness
misidentification," rather than a suggestive procedure in and of itself, is identification, specifically by impairing the suggestive tendencies of
what violates a defendant's due process rights. However, the Biggers conventional procedures. Notable measures include having a parade of at
Court left open the possibility that per se exclusion of evidence derived least nine (9) people, when one (1) suspect is included, to at least 14
from unnecessarily suggestive confrontations might be available to people, when two (2) suspects are included45 and forewarning the witness
defendants whose confrontations and trials took place after Stovall.39 that he or she may or may not actually see the suspect in the lineup.46
Additionally, there should be a careful recording of the witness' pre-
The Biggers standard was further affirmed in 1977 in Manson v. identification description of the perpetrator47 and explicit instructions for
Brathwaite; 40 police officers to not "direct the witness' attention to any individual."48

The Manson Court made clear that the standard from Biggers would III
govern all due process challenges to eyewitness evidence, stating that
judges should weigh the five factors against the "corrupting effect of the Domestic jurisprudence recognizes that eyewitness identification is
suggestive identification." Ultimately, the Court affirmed that "reliability is affected by "normal human fallibilities and suggestive influences."49 People
the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony." In v. Teehankee, Jr. 50 introduced in this jurisdiction the totality of
rejecting the per se exclusionary rule, the Court acknowledged that such a circumstances test, which relies on factors already identified by the United
rule would promote greater deterrence against the use of suggestive States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers:51
procedures, and it noted a "surprising unanimity among scholars" that the
per se approach was "essential to avoid serious risk of miscarriage of (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
justice." However, the Court concluded the cost to society of not being able
to use reliable evidence of guilt in criminal prosecutions would be too high. (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any
The Manson Court also made clear that its new stm1dard would apply to prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty
both pre-trial and in-court identification evidence, thus resulting in a unified demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time
analysis of all identification evidence in the wake of suggestive procedures. between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of
In contrast, the Stovall Court had not specified whether unnecessarily the identification procedure.52
suggestive procedures would require per se exclusion of both pre-trial
identification evidence and any in-court identification, or alternatively, A witness' credibility is ascertained by considering the first two factors, i.e.,
whether witnesses who had viewed unnecessarily suggestive procedures the witness' opportunity to view the malefactor at the time of the crime and
might nonetheless be allowed to identify defendants in court after an the witness' degree of attention at that time, based on conditions of visibility
independent source determination.41 and the extent of time, little and fleeting as it may have been, for the
witness to be exposed to the perpetrators, peruse their features, and
A 2016 article notes that Manson "remains the federal constitutional ascertain their identity.53 In People v. Pavillare: 54
standard."42 It' also notes that "[t]he vast majority of states have also
followed Manson in interpreting the requirements of their own Both witnesses had ample opportunity to observe the kidnappers and to
constitutions."43 remember their faces. The complainant had close contact with the
kidnappers when he was abducted and beaten up, and later when the
The United Kingdom has adopted the Code of Practice for the Identification kidnappers haggled on the amount of the ransom money. His cousin met
of Persons by Police Officers.44 It "concerns the principal methods used by Pavillare face to face and actually dealt with him when he paid the ransom
6
money. The two-hour period that the complainant was in close contact with research has noted ... there is not necessarily a concordance between the
his abductors was sufficient for him to have a recollection of their physical two.61
appearance. Complainant admitted in court that he would recognize his
abductors if he s[aw] them again and upon seeing Pavillare he immediately Our jurisprudence has yet to give due appreciation to scientific; data on
recognized him as one of the malefactors as he remember[ed] him as the weapon focus. Instead, what is prevalent is the contrary view which
one who blocked his way, beat him up, haggled with the complainant's empirical studies discredit.62 For instance, in People v. Sartagoda:
cousin and received the ransom money. As an indicium of candor the
private complainant admitted that he d[id] not recognize the co-accused, [T]he most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence [is] to strive to
Sotero Santos for which reason the case was dismissed against him.55 see the looks a..11d faces of their assailants and observe the manner in
which the crime was committed. Most often the face of the assailant and
Apart from extent or degree of exposure, this Court has also appreciated body movements thereof, create a lasting impression which cannot easily
a witness' specialized skills or extraordinary capabilities.56 People v. be erased from their memory.63
Sanchez57 concerned the theft of an armored car. The witness, a trained
guard, was taken by this Court as being particularly alert about his Rather than a sweeping approbation of a supposed natural propensity for
surroundings during the attack. remembering the faces of assailants, this Court now emphasizes the need
for courts to appreciate the totality of circumstances in the identification of
The degree of a witness' attentiveness is the result of many factors, among perpetrators of crimes.
others: exposure time, frequency of exposure, the criminal incident's
degree of violence, the witness' stress levels and expectations, and the Apart from the witness' opportunity to view the perpetrator during the
witness' activity during the commission of the crime.58 commission of the Grime and the witness' degree of attention at that time,
the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness is equally vital.
The degree of the crime's violence affects a witness' stress levels. A focal Logically, a witness' credibility is enhanced by the extent to which his or
point of psychological studies has been the effect of the presence of a her initial description of the perpetrator matches the actual appearance of
weapon on a witness' attentiveness. Since the 1970s, it has been the person ultimately prosecuted for the offense.
hypothesized that the presence of a weapon captures a witness' attention,
thereby reducing his or her attentiveness to other details such as the Nevertheless, discrepancies, when properly accounted for, should not be
perpetrator's facial and other identifying features.59 Research on this has fatal to the prosecution's case, For instance, in Lumanog v. People,64 this
involved an enactme1'1t model involving two (2) groups: first, an Court recognized that age estimates cannot be made accurately:
enactment with a gun; and second, an enactment of the same incident
using an implement like a pencil or a syringe as substitute for an actual
Though his estimate of Joel's age was not precise, it was not that far from
gun. Both groups are then asked to identify the culprit in a lineup. Results
his true age, especially if we consider that being a tricycle driver who was
reveal a statistically significant difference in the accuracy of eyewitness
exposed daily to sunlight, Joel's looks may give a first impression that he
identification between the two (2) groups:60
is older than his actual age. Moreover Alejo's description of Lumanog as
dark-skinned was made two (2) months prior to the dates of the trial when
[T]he influence of [a weapon focus] variable on an eyewitness's he was again asked to identify him in court. When defense counsel posed
performance can only be estimated post hoc. Yet the data here do offer a the question of the discrepancy in Alejo's description of Lumanog who was
rather strong statement: To not consider a weapon's effect on eyewitness then prese11ted as having a fair complexion and was 40 years old, the
performance is to ignore relevant information. The weapon effect does private prosecutor manifested the possible effect of Lumanog's
reliably occur, particularly in crin1es of short duration in which a incarceration for such length of time as to make his appearance different
threatening wea.pon is visible. Identification accuracy and feature at the time of trial.65
accuracy of eyewitnesses are likely to be affected, although, as previous

7
The totality of circumstances test also requires a consideration of the Thus, the totality of circumstances test also requires a consideration of the
degree of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the moment of suggestiveness of the identification procedure undergone by a witness.
identification. What is most critical here is the initial identification made by Both verbal and non-verbal information might become inappropriate cues
the witness during investigation and case build-up, not identification during or suggestions to a witness:
trial.66
A police officer may tell a witness that a suspect has been caught and the
A witness' certainty is tested in court during cross-examination. In several witness should look at some photographs or come to view a lineup and
instances, this Court has considered a witness' straight and candid make an identification. Even if the policeman does not explicitly mention a
recollection of the incident, undiminished by the rigors of cross- suspect, it is likely that the witness will believe he is being asked to identify
examination as an indicator of credibility.67 a good suspect who will be one of the members of the lineup or set of
photos ... If the officer should unintentionally stare a bit longer at the
Still, certainty on the witness stand is by no means conclusive. By the time suspect, or change his tone of voice when he says, "Tell us whether you
a witness takes the stand, he or she shall have likely made narrations to think it is number one, two, THREE, four, five, or six," the witness's opinion
investigators, to responding police or barangay officers, to the public might be swayed.73
prosecutor, to any possible private prosecutors, to the families of the
victims, other sympathizers, and even to the media. The witness, then, In appraising the suggestiveness of identification procedures, this Court
may have established certainty, not because of a foolproof cognitive has previously considered prior or contemporaneous74 actions of law
perception and recollection of events but because of consistent enforcers, prosecutors, media, or even fellow witnesses.
reinforcement borne by becoming an experienced narrator. Repeated
narrations before different audiences may also prepare a witness for the In People v. Baconguis,75 this Court acquitted the accused, whose
same kind of scrutiny that he or she will encounter during cross- identification was tainted by an improper suggestion.76 There, the witness
examination. Again, what is more crucial is certainty at the onset or on was made to identify the suspect inside a detention cell which contained
initial identification, not in a relatively belated stage of criminal only the suspect.77
proceedings.
People v. Escordiaz78 involved robbery with rape. Throughout their ordeal,
The totality of circumstances test also requires a consideration of the the victim and her companions were blindfolded.79 The victim, however, felt
length of time between the crime and the identification made by the a "rough projection''80 on the back of the perpetrator. The perpetrator also
witness. "It is by now a well established fact that people are less accurate spoke, thereby familiarizing the victim with his voice.81 Escordial recounted
and complete in their eyewitness accounts after a long retention interval the investigative process which resulted in bringing the alleged perpetrator
than after a short one."68 Ideally then, a prosecution witness must identify into custody. After several individuals were interviewed, the investigating
the suspect immediately after the incident. This Court has considered officer had an inkling of who to look for. He "found accused-appellant [in a]
acceptable an identification made two (2) days after the commission of a basketball court and 'invited' him to go to the police station for
crime,69 not so one that had an interval of five and a half (5 1/2) months.70 questioning."82 When the suspect was brought to the police station, the
rape victim was already there. Upon seeing the suspect enter, the rape
The passage of time is not the only factor that diminishes memory. Equally victim requested to see the suspect's back. The suspect removed his shirt.
jeopardizing is a witness' interactions with other individuals involved in the When the victim saw a "rough projection" on the suspect's back, she spoke
event.71 As noted by cognitive psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus, "[p]ost[- to the police and stated that the suspect was the perpetrator. The police
]event information can not only enhance existing memories but also then brought in the other witnesses to identify the suspect. Four (4)
change a witness's memory and even cause nonexistent details to become witnesses were taken to the cell containing the accused and they
incorporated into a previously acquired memory."72 consistently pointed to the suspect even as four (4) other individuals were
with him in the cell.83

8
This Court found the show-up, with respect to the rape victim, and the photographs of Pineda and his companion to the witness, who positively
lineup, with respect to the four (4) other witnesses, to have been tainted identified the two (2) as among the perpetrators.90
with irregularities. It also noted that the out-of-court identification could
have been the subject of objections to its admissibility as evidence This Court found the identification procedure unacceptable.91 It then
although these objections were never raised during trial.84 articulated two (2) rules for out-of-court identifications through
photographs:
Although these objections were not timely raised, this Court found that the
prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable The first rule in proper photographic identification procedure is that a series
doubt and acquitted the accused.85 It noted that the victim was blindfolded of photographs must be shown, and not merely that of the suspect. The
throughout her ordeal. Her identification was rendered unreliable by her second rule directs that when a witness is shown a group of pictures, their
own admission that she could only recognize her perpetrator through his arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of the
eyes and his voice. It reasoned that, given the limited exposure of the rape pictures pertains to the suspect.92
victim to the perpetrator, it was difficult for her to immediately identify the
perpetrator. It found the improper suggestion made by the police officer as Non-compliance with these rules suggests that any subsequent corporeal
having possibly aided in the identification of the suspect.86 The Court cited identification made by a witness may not actually be the result of a reliable
with approval the following excerpt from an academic journal: recollection of the criminal incident. Instead, it will simply confirm false
confidence induced by the suggestive presentation of photographs to a
Social psychological influences.Various social psychological factors also witness.
increase the danger of suggestibility in a lh1eup confrontation. Witnesses,
like other people, are motivated by a desire to be correct and to avoid Pineda further identified 12 danger signals that might indicate erroneous
looking foolish. By arranging a lineup, the police have evidenced their identification. Its list is by no means exhaustive, but it identifies
belief that they have caught the criminal; witnesses, realizing this, probably benchmarks which may complement the application of the totality of
will feel foolish if they cannot identify anyone and therefore1 may choose circumstances rule. These danger signals are:
someone despite residual uncertainly. Moreover, the need to reduce
psychological discomfort often motivates the victim of a crime to find a
(1) the witness originally stated that he could not identify anyone;
likely target for feelings of hostility.
(2) the identifying witness knew the accused before the crime, but made
Finally, witnesses are highly motivated to behave like those around them.
no accusation against him when questioned by the police;
This desire to conform produces an increased need to identify someone in
order to show the police that they, too, feel that the criminal is in the lineup,
and makes the witnesses particularly vulnerable to any clues conveyed by (3) a serious discrepancy exists between the identifying witness' original
the police or other witnesses as to whom they suspect of the crime.87 description and the actual description of the accused;
(Emphasis in the original)
(4) before identifying the accused at the trial, the witness erroneously
People v. Pineda, 88 involved six (6) perpetrators committing robbery with identified some other person;
homicide aboard a passenger bus.89 A passenger recalled that one (1) of
the perpetrators was referred to as "Totie" by his companions. The police (5) other witnesses to the crime fail to identify the accused;
previously knew that a certain Totie Jacob belonged to the robbery gang
of Rolando Pineda (Pineda). At that time also, Pineda and another (6) before trial, the witness sees the accused but fails to identify him;
companion were in detention for another robbery. The police presented

9
(7) before the commission of the crime, the witness had limited opportunity vigor when, as in the present case, the issue goes beyond pure credibility
to see the accused; into constitutional dimensions arising from the due process rights of the
accused.
(8) the witness and the person identified are of different racial groups;
….
(9) during his original observation of the perpetrator of the crime, the
witness was unaware that a crime was involved; The initial photographic identification in this case carries serious
constitutional law implications in terms of the possible violation of the due
(10) a considerable time elapsed between the witness' view of the criminal process rights of the accused as it may deny him his rights to a fair trial to
and his identification of the accused; the extent that his in-court identification proceeded from and was
influenced by impermissible suggestions in the earlier photographic
(11) several persons committed the crime; and identification. In the context of this case, the investigators might not have
been fair to Rodrigo if they themselves, purposely or unwittingly, fixed in
the mind of Rosita, or at least actively prepared her mind to, the thought
(12) the witness fails to make a positive trial identification.93
that Rodrigo was one of the robbers. Effectively, this act is no different from
coercing a witness in identifying an accused, varying only with respect to
Pineda underscored that "[t]he more important duty of the prosecution is the means used. Either way, the police investigators a.re the real actors in
to prove the identity of the perpetrator and not to establish the existence of the identification of the accused; evidence of identification is effectively
the crime."94 Establishing the identity of perpetrators is a difficult task created when none really exists.99 (Emphasis supplied)
because of this jurisdiction's tendency to rely more on testimonial evidence
rather than on physical evidence. Unlike the latter, testimonial evidence
IV
can be swayed by improper suggestions. Legal scholar Patrick M. Wall
notes that improper suggestion "probably accounts for more miscarriages
of justice than any other single factor[.]"95 Marshall Houts, who served the Applying these standards, this Court finds the identification made by
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the American judiciary, concurs and prosecution witnesses Cruz and Perez unreliable. Despite their
considers eyewitness identification as "the most unreliable form of identification, there remains reasonable doubt if accused-appellant Nuñez
evidence[.]"96 is the same Pobre who supposedly committed the robbery with homicide
along with Marciales and Nabia.
People v. Rodrigo97 involved the same circumstances as Pineda. The
police presented a singular photograph for the eyewitness to identify the The prosecution banks on the following portion of Cruz's testimony.100 The
person responsible for a robbery with homicide. The witness identified the Court of Appeals heavily relies on the same portion, reproducing parts of
person in the photograph as among the perpetrators. This Court stated it in its Decision:101
that, even as the witness subsequently identified the suspect in court, such
identification only followed an impermissible suggestion in the course of Q: Madam Witness, where were you on June 22, 2000 in the afternoon?
the photographic identification. This Court specifically stated that a
suggestive identification violates the right of the accused to due process, A: I was on duty at Tayuman Caltex station, Ma'am.
denying him or her of a fair trial:98
Q: And while you were on duty, what happened if any?
The greatest care should be taken in considering the identification of the
accused especially, when this identification is made by a sole witness and A: While we were on duty there was a pick-up which was getting gas and
the judgment in the case totally depends on the reliability of the a person was in front and we were joking baka kami mahold-up yun pala,
identification. This level of care and circumspection applies with greater hinoholdup na kami sa opisina.
10
Q: You mentioned that there was already hold-up happening? A: Inside, Ma'am.

A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: Before you went inside, what did you witness after you saw that there
was hold-up inside the office?
Q: What time was that when you noticed that holdup?
A: I saw that one of our companions, a gun was pointed to him and also to
A: Around 8:00p.m. our employer.

Q: Where was the hold-up going on? Q: Who was your companion you saw who was pointed with a gun?

A: In the office, Ma'am. A: Alex Diaz, and Kuya Alex my employer.

Q: And how far is that office from where you were at that time, how many Q: Who were those persons who pointed guns to your co-worker and to
meters? your employer?

A: From here to the wall of the court. A: The two accused who were first arrested.

Court: Q: Aside from the two accused, do they have other companions?

Anyway, I have the reference. A: Yes, Ma'am.

Prosecutor Aragones: Q: Who was that person who was also with the two accused?

Q: What happened after you saw that there was [a] hold[-up] going on A: Paul Pobre.
inside the office of the Caltex Station?
Q: By the way, who were those two accused you are referring to according
A: After that me and my companions ran to the computer shop which is to you were arrested?
beside the office.
A: George Marciales and I cannot remember the other one.
Q: By the way, why were you at the Caltex gasoline station?
Q: You mentioned of the name Paul Pobre, kindly look around if there is
A: I was an attendant, Ma'am. any Paul Pobre in court?

Q: You mentioned that you proceeded to the computer shop which is A: Yes, Ma'am, he is here.
beside the office?
Q: Can you point to him?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
A: He is that one (pointing)
Q: Where did you run, inside or outside the computer shop?

11
INTERPRETER; before as George Marciales. Ang nakita po lang naming una sa loob apat
po sila si boss, si Alex, that man (Nunez) and the man identified before as
Witness is pointing to a person wearing yellow shirt who when asked gave Orly Nabia.
his name as Crisanto Pepafio.
Q: Where were you at that time when these four persons were inside the
PROSECUTOR ARAGONES: office?

Q: Who told you that the name of that person is Paul Pobre? A: We were sitting in an island near the three pumps in front of the gas
station[,] ma'am.
A: Kuya Rommel
Q: The office in relation to that island is at the back, is that correct?
Q: Who is Kuya Rommel?
A: Yes[,] ma'am.
A: Brother of my employer Kuya Alex.
Q: There were no customers at that time?
Q: Who was apprehended in Laguna?
A: None[,] ma'am.
A: He is the one, Paul Pobre.
Q: The cashier were (sic) Alex is positioned is facing you[.] [I]s that correct?
Q: What was the participation of that person you pointed to as being the
companion of accused George Marciales and the other one? A: Yes[,] ma'am.

A: He was the one who entered last and who shot. Q: So it was the back of the accused that you saw, is that correct?

COURT: A: No[,] ma'am. Sa pinto po kasi yung register namin e. So andito po si


Alex nakatungo po sya andito po yung accused naka[-]ganito po sya,
Q: Who did he shoot? nakatutok pos a (sic) kanya. (Witness was standing while demonstrating
the incident between the accused and Alex inside the office) very clear po
yung itsura nya nung nakita po namin sya.
A: Kuya Alex.102
Q: How far is that island from the cashier, from the place you were seated
The prosecution similarly banks on the narration and identification made
right now?
by Perez:
A: Around 4 to 5 meters[,] ma'am.
Q: Madam Witness when Alex, the accused you pointed a while ago, the
other accused Marciales and your boss, all of them were inside the
computer shop, the office of Caltex? Q: Were you able to hear the conversation considering that distance of 4
to 5 meters?
A: At first no[,] ma'am[.] Nagsimula po kasi andoon po kami sa labas may
lalaking nakatayo po doon sa malapit sa road, sya po yung na[] identify A: I heard nothing[,] ma'am[,] except when Alex shouted[,] "Byron tulong,
hinoholdap tayo[.]"
12
Q: Alex was shouting while he was still inside the office? Q: You did not run or ask for help considering that that Caltex is along the
National road? A: Honestly speaking[,] we were not able to say anything at
A: Yes[,] ma'am. that time[,]ma'am.

Q: And it was Byron who ran towards the office? A: After po ng pag shoot sa kanila tumakbo po kami ni Rona doon sa may
computer shop, sa bahay po nila. Pagkaraan po ng ilang minuto lumabas
A: The first one was George Marciales, Byron only followed him. kami nakita po naming sila na nagtatakbuhan together with Kuya
Lawrence. Nakita po naming (sic) sila na tumatakbo, yung dalawa
papuntang Angono, yung isa hindi ko na po alam kung [saan] nagpunta.
Q: Where was George Marciales before he entered that office?
Nakita na lang po naming si boss na gmnagapang asking for help.103
A: He was near the road[,] ma'am.
The Court of Appeals also favorably cited the following identification made
by Perez:
Q: But that is not within the gas station's premises?
Prosecutor Aragones
A: Bali eto po yung pinaka sementado, andito sya. (Witness referring to
the place where Marciales is)
Q : Now can you look inside the court and tell us if there is anybody here
who took part in that incident or involved in that incident?
Q: When you said the cemented area, you were referring to the National
road?
Relen Perez
A: Yes[,] ma'am.
A: Him[,] ma'am. (witness pointing to the accused)
Q: After Byron went inside the said office, were you able to see what
Q: What was the participation of that man whom you pointed today in that
happened inside?
robbery with homicide incident in Caltex gasoline station?
A: Yes[,] ma'am. Nakasuntok po sya ng isa kay George tapos tinadyakan
A: He was the one who was pointing a gun to my co-employee Alexander
po siya sa tagiliran tsaka binaril po sya. Tapos bumagsak napo (sic) sya.
Diaz[,] ma'am.104
Q: You were still outside your office at that time?
V
A: Yes[,] ma'am.
These identifications are but two (2) of a multitude of circumstances that
the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals should have considered
Q: Nobody was with you at that time aside from your co-employees, only in determining whether or not the prosecution has surmounted the
the accused was inside at that time? threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Lamentably, they failed to
give due recognition to several other factors that raise serious doubts on
A: Yes[,] ma'am. the soundness of the identification made by prosecution witnesses Cruz
and Perez.

13
First and most glaringly, Cruz had previously admitted to not remembering until the occasion of his arraigmnent,106 Nuñez was the sole object of
the appearance of the fourth robber, the same person she would later claim identification, in an identification process that had all but pinned him as the
with supposed certainty as Nuñez. In the original testimony she made in perpetrator.
Marciales and Nabia's trial in 2002, she admitted to her inability to identify
the fourth robber: VI

Fiscal Dela Cuesta Cruz's admission that she could not identify the fourth robber anathemized
any subsequent identification. Moreover, the prosecution, the Court of
Q: Can you describe the other holdupper during that date and time who Appeals, and the Regional Trial Court all failed to account for any
were the companions of George Marciales? intervening occurrence that explains why and how Cruz shifted from
complete confusion to absolute certainty. Instead, they merely took her and
Ronalyn Cruz Perez's subsequent identification as unassailable and trustworthy because
of a demeanor apparently indicating certitude.
A: I cannot describe them[,] ma 'am.
The conviction of an accused must hinge less on the certainty displayed
Q: Why can you not describe the appearance of the other holdupper? by a witness when he or she has already taken the stand but more on the
certainty he or she displayed and the accuracy he or she manifested at the
initial and original opportunity to identify the perpetrator. Cruz had originally
A: I cannot remember their appearances, ma 'am.
admitted to not having an iota of certainty, only to make an unexplained
complete reversal and implicate Nunez as among the perpetrators. She
…. jeopardized her own credibility.

Fiscal Dela Cuesta Cruz's and Perez's predicaments are not aided by the sheer length of time
that had lapsed from the criminal incident until the time they made their
Q: At what particular point in time that the 4th holdupper went inside the identifications. By the time Cruz made the identification, seven (7) years
office? and eight (8) months had lapsed since June 22, 2000. As for Perez, eight
(8) years and nine (9) months had already lapsed.
Ronalyn Cruz
In People v. Rodrigo, 107 this Court considered a lapse of five and a half (5
A: When they were wrestling with each other, ma'am. 1/2) months as unreliable. Hence, there is greater reason that this Court
must exercise extreme caution for identifications made many years later.
Q: Was that before the shooting or after? This is consistent with the healthy sense of incredulity expected of courts
in criminal cases, where the prosecution is tasked with surmounting the
A: Before the shooting[,] ma'am.105 utmost threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Second, by the time Cruz and Perez stood at the witness stand and It is not disputed that Nunez's identification by Cruz and Perez was borne
identified Nuñez, roughly eight (8) years had passed since the robbery only by Nunez's arrest on July 2, 2006. The prosecution even
incident. acknowledged that his identification was initially done only to defeat his
motion to have the case against him dismissed.108 Evidently, Nuñez's
Third, as the People's Appellee's Brief concedes, witnesses' identification identification before trial proper was made in a context which had
of Nunez did not come until after he had been arrested. In fact, it was not practically induced witnesses to identify Nuñez as a culprit. Not only was
14
there no effort to countervail the likelihood of him being identified, it even This Court finds Nunez's identification prior to trial bothersome and his
seemed that the prosecution and others that had acted in its behalf such subsequent and contingent identification on the stand more problematic.
as tile apprehending officers, had actively designed a situation where there
would be no other possibility than for him to be identified as the perpetrator Nunez's identification, therefore, fails to withstand the rigors of the totality
of the crime. of circumstances test. First, the witnesses failed to even give any prior
description of him. Second, a prosecution witness failed to exhibit even the
The dubiousness of Nunez's presentation for identification is further slightest degree of certainty when originally given the chance to identify
exacerbated by the circumstances of his apprehension. In a Manifestation him as the supposed fourth robber. Third, a significantly long amount of
filed with the Court of Appeals, and which, quite notably, the prosecution time had lapsed since the criminal incident; the original witness' statement
never bothered repudiating, Nunez recounted how his apprehension that none of his features were seen as to enable his identification; and the
appeared to have been borne by nothing more than the crudeness and positive identification made of him when the case was re-opened. And
sloth of police officers: finally, his presentation for identification before and during trial was
peculiarly, even worrisomely, suggestive as to practically induce in
6). That, the truth of the matter as far as the offended charged against me, prosecution witnesses the belief that he, to the exclusion of any other
I ha[ve] no any truthfulness (sic) nor having any reality as it was indeed person, must have been the supposed fourth robber.
only a mere strong manufactured, fabricated and unfounded allegations
against me just to get even with me of my [untolerable] disciplinary actions These deficiencies and the doubts over Cruz's and Perez's opportunity to
of some individuals who had a personal grudge against me. peruse the fourth robber's features and their degree of attentiveness during
the crime clearly show that this case does not manage to satisfy even one
…. (1) of the six (6) factors that impel consideration under the totality of
circumstances test.
9). That, with all due respect, I ha[ve] nothing to do with the offensed (sic)
charged and it is not true that the case was done was charged against me VII
it is Paul Borbe y Pipano it was wrong person pick-up by the police officer,
because the said Paul Borbe y [P]ipano was charged of several crimes, Recall that both prosecution witnesses Cruz and Perez acknowledged the
while me my record has no single offense against me. extreme stress and fright that they experienced on the evening of June 22,
2000. As both Cruz and Perez recalled, it was enough for them to run and
1âwphi1

10). That, with due respect, there was no truthfulness that I was the one seek refuge in a computer shop. Their tension was so palpable that even
who committed the said crime, it was a big mistake because we have the Cruz's and Perez's recollections of what transpired and of how Nuñez
[same 1 family name they just pick up the wrong person which is innocent supposedly participated in the crime are so glaringly different:
to the said crime.
According to Cruz, two (2) other persons initiated the robbery, by pointing
11). That, with all due respect, it was not true, also that it was me who guns at Regencia and Diaz inside the gasoline station's office. It was
committed the said crime, it was Paul Borbe y Pipano is the one because supposedly only later, when Diaz shouted, that a third robber, Marciales,
he was habitual in doing crime in our community, in fact my record is clean and a fourth robber, allegedly Nunez, ran in, to assist the first two (2)
never been committed any crime in my life, I am a concern citizen who can robbers. In contrast, Perez claimed that Nuñez was one (1) of the two (2)
help our community well.109 (Emphasis supplied) robbers who were initially already in the office. Nunez was then supposedly
pointing a gun at Diaz while the other robber was pointing a gun at
The identification made during Nunez's trial, where eyewitnesses vaunted Regencia.
certainty, was but an offshoot of tainted processes that preceded his trial.

15
They both claim that after Diaz shouted, the first two (2) robbers received Conviction in criminal cases demands proof beyond reasonable doubt.
assistance. Cruz, however, claims that two (2) additional robbers came to While this does not require absolute certainty, it calls for moral certainty. 1âwphi 1

the aid of the first two (2), while Perez claims that there was only one (1) It is the degree of proof that appeals to a magistrate's conscience:
additional robber.
An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of
In the scuffle that ensued in the office, Cruz claims that Marciales shot Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he
Dimatulac while Nunez shot Diaz. For her part, Perez claims that Marciales must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the
was the only one who fired shots at Regencia, Diaz, and Dimatulac. due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from
conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact
Jurisprudence holds that inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. The burden of
witnesses do not necessarily jeopardize the prosecution's case.110 This, proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden the
however, is on1 y true o f mm. or m. consistencies that are ultimately accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be
inconsequential or merely incidental to the overarching narrative of what entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course,
crime was committed; how, when, and where it was committed; and who mean such degree of proof as excluding possibility of error, produces
committed it. "It is well-settled that inconsistencies on minor details do not absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof
affect credibility as they only refer to collateral matters which do not touch which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The conscience must
upon the commission of the crime itself."111 be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged.113

The inconsistencies here between Cruz and Perez are far from trivial. At This Court is unable to come to a conscientious satisfaction as to Nuñez's
issue is precisely the participation of an alleged conspirator whose name guilt. On the contrary, this Court finds it bothersome that a man of humble
the prosecution did not even know for proper indictment. Yet, where the means appears to have been wrongly implicated, not least because of
prosecution witnesses cannot agree is also precisely how the person who lackadaisical law enforcement tactics, and has been made to suffer the
now stands accused actually participated in the commission of the offense. severity and ignominy of protracted prosecution, intervening detention, and
Their divergences are so glaring that they demonstrate the prosecution's potential conviction. Here, this Court puts an end to this travesty of justice.
failure to establish Nunez's complicity. This Court acquits accused-appellant.

VIII WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated June 26, 2013 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04474 is REVERSED and
These failings by the prosecution vis-a-vis the totality of circumstances test SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Crisente Pepaño Nuñez is ACQUITTED
are also indicative of many of the 12 danger signals identified in People v. for reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from
Pineda12 to be present in this case. On the first, fifth, and twelfth danger detention, unless confined for any other lawful cause.
signals, prosecution witness Cruz originally made an unqualified
admission that she could not identify the fourth robber. On the third danger Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of
signal, there is not even an initial description ·with which to match or Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director
counter-check Nuñez. On the tenth danger signal, a considerable amount of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within five
of time had passed since Cruz and Perez witnessed the crime and their (5) days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken. A copy shall
identification of Nunez. On the eleventh danger signal, several perpetrators also be furnished to the Director General of Philippine National Police for
committed the crime. his information.

IX Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.SO ORERED.

16
G.R. Nos. 131736-37. March 11, 2002] similarly worded except for the victims name, appellants Joey and
Mario Manlansing were likewise charged with the murder of Magin
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Soriano.iv
JOEY MANLANSING y AMBROSIO, and Inasmuch as the two cases were interrelated, having arisen from the
MARIO MANLANSING y AMBROSIO, accused- same incident, the two cases were consolidated.
appellants. On arraignment, Joey Manlansing pleaded not guilty to both
charges, while Mario Manlansing pleaded guilty to two counts of
DECISION murder. After they waived pre-trial, both cases were heard on the merits.
QUISUMBING, J.: For the prosecution, SPO2 CASTILLONES of the Philippine
National Police (PNP), testified that at around 8:00 A.M. on December
For automatic review is the joint decisioni dated May 2, 1997, of 28, 1994, a concerned citizen informed the Cabanatuan City Police
the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 27, in Criminal Station of an alleged killing in a house at Bitas, Cabanatuan City.
Cases No. 6150-AF and No. 6151-AF, convicting appellants of two Immediately, a team composed of P/Insp. Bienvenido Padua, SPO2
counts of murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of death for Castillones, and SPO1 Edgardo Pangilinan went to the place.v When
each count. Appellants were also ordered to pay the heirs of the victims they arrived at the Soriano residence, they spotted bloodstains on the
P250,000 for actual damages and P500,000 as moral damages for each ceiling. Before they entered the house, they waited for Nestor Villa of
count of murder. the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) who was tasked to take
Appellants are brothers. For four years they were tenants of the fingerprints at the crime scene.vi In the stockroom on the first floor, they
spouses Maginii and Jorja Soriano. found the lifeless body of 70-year-old Magin in a pool of blood.vii There
were several wounds on his hands and arms, as well as cuts on his head.
In an amended information dated December 30, 1994, appellants They took pictures of the corpse.viii Upstairs, they found the corpse of
were charged with the murder of Jorja Soriano allegedly committed as his 68-year-old spouse, Jorja, on the floor, her throat slit and her neck
follows: hacked.ix Her throat was stuffed with a small towel and bloodstains
That on or about the 27th day of December, 1994, in the City of covered her stomach.x The investigators also took photos of the
Cabanatuan, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction deceased. When they turned her body over, they found a six-inch
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring bloodstained knife, with the initials JF carved in the handle.xi The police
together and mutually aiding one another, with intent to kill and with made rough sketchesxii and took more photographs,xiii while Villa lifted
evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of night time fingerprints from the scene and the knife.xiv These were sent to the NBI
and with the use of bolo, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and office in Manila. The cadavers were brought to the City Health Office
feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person for autopsy.
of JORJA SORIANO y Rigor by hacking the latter, thereby
inflicting upon the latter serious injuries which directly caused her DR. JUN CONCEPCION, medical officer of Cabanatuan City, who
death. autopsied the bodies, testified that Magins death was due to
CONTRARY TO LAW.iii hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple hacking wounds on the head
and nape.xv Jorjas death was the result of hypovolemic shock secondary
In an amended information also dated December 30, 1994, and to hacking wound on the neck, right side.xvi They died between 10:00
17
P.M. on December 27, 1994 to 3:00 A.M. of December 28, 1994. Dr. the crime scene and sent them to the office in Manila for examination.
Concepcion testified that from the nature of the injuries sustained, the
BAYANIxxv PALAD, a dactyloscopy expert, testified that a
wounds could have been inflicted by more than one person, since two
comparison of the prints from the crime scene showed that two prints
different weapons were used.xvii He declared that the weapon used to
matched the left middle and ring fingerprints of appellant Joey
inflict the hacking wounds was not pointed, while the stab wounds were
Manlansing.xxvi
caused by a sharp and pointed instrument.xviii
For the defense, MARIO MANLANSING claimed he alone was
Two carpenters constructing a chapel for the Sorianos said that
responsible for the deaths. In open court, Mario affirmed his confession
appellants frequented the house of the victims even at night. They
and insisted that his brother had nothing to do with the deaths.xxvii He
reported seeing appellants enter the Sorianos house on the night of
claimed that Joey woke up only after he killed Maginxxviii and that Joey
December 27, 1994. Thus, the police ordered a manhunt for the
tried to unsuccessfully stop him from attacking Jorja. He said he killed
Manlansing brothers.
the couple out of anger after Jorja told him that he was going to be
On December 28, 1994, appellant Joey Manlansing was arrested in ejected as a tenant. Mario said Joey knew nothing of his motive.xxix
Sta. Clara, Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija and brought back to Cabanatuan City
On the stand, appellant JOEY MANLANSING affirmed his sworn
for questioning. During custodial investigation, Atty. Edgardo Villarin,
statement naming Mario as the person solely responsible for killing the
the city legal officer, advised him not to talk.xix Nevertheless, he named
spouses. He denied any participation in it,xxx but admitted hitting Jorja
his brother, Mario, as the killer. He denied participation in the killing,
because she was shouting and he did not want his brother to hear her,
but he admitted boxing Jorja in the face to prevent her from shouting,
lest he attack her too.xxxi
while Mario was assaulting her husband.xx
The defense also presented ENRIQUE MANLANSING, the father
SPO3 CAMPOS declared that on December 29, 1994, the police
of the appellants. He testified that he fetched Mario from Paniqui,
were tipped that appellant Mario Manlansing was hiding in Paniqui,
Tarlac, in order to surrender him to the authorities.xxxii
Tarlac. Accompanied by Enrique Manlansing, appellants father, they
went to Paniqui and apprehended Mario.xxi During the custodial Finally, the prosecution presented a balut vendor, MARIO
investigation, assisted by counsel, he confessed.xxii He said he hid the BARTOLOME, as its rebuttal witness. He testified that on the night of
bolo at his sister-in-laws house in Sta. Clara, Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija.xxiii It the killings, he was plying his trade at Cynthias Eatery, right across the
was recovered and sent to the NBI in Manila for examination. Sorianos residence. At around 11:00 P.M. he offered his wares to two
persons who came out of the Sorianos house. He noticed that both had
NBI forensic chemist ALICIA LIBERATO testified that she
bloodied shirts. When he inquired about the bloodstains, they answered
examined a bolo and a knife and found human bloodstains on them.xxiv
they had just killed a pig and threatened he could be next. Scared, he
On December 30, 1994, a re-enactment of the crime was done at shut up. The following day, he heard about the killings on the radio but
the crime scene. Mario said that after he killed the spouses, he and Joey did not inform the police about his encounter with the appellants. It was
ransacked bags in the house but found neither money nor jewelry. He only after his conscience bothered him that he reported it to the
told Joey to change his clothes so they could go. Mario then got some police.xxxiii
rags and tried to clean up the place. He went to the bathroom downstairs
After trial, appellants were convicted, thus:
to wash the bolo and the rags.
WHEREFORE, this Court holds that the guilt of both accused
NBI fingerprint expert NESTOR VILLA took the fingerprints from
18
had been proven beyond reasonable doubt and therefore sentences THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING
them (to): THE DEATH PENALTY UPON ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
MARIO MANLANSING AND JOEY MANLANSING.
1) Death in Criminal Case No. 6150;
Two principal issues are for resolution: (1) Did the trial court err in
2) Death in Criminal Case No. 6151;
convicting both appellants Mario Manlansing and Joey Manlansing for
3) In both cases to pay the heirs of the deceased: alleged conspiracy to kill the Sorianos? (2) Did the trial court err in
a) P250,000.00 by way of funeral and other expenses and imposing the death penalty upon appellants?
actual damages. On the first issue, appellants contend that since there were no other
b) P500,000.00 as moral damages. witnesses, nothing can be clearer than the confession of appellant Mario
Manlansing that he alone killed the couple and that his brother Joey had
SO ORDERED.xxxiv nothing to do with the incident. They submit that a confession if freely
Hence, this automatic review. Appellants allege in their brief that and voluntarily given is deserving of the highest credit. Inasmuch as
the trial court committed the following errors: Marios confession was freely and voluntarily given and was reiterated
by him during trial, the lower court erred in not giving credit to said
I
confession.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING
ACCUSED-APPELLANT JOEY MANLANSING IN Appellants also aver that the trial court likewise erred in finding
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 6150-AF AND 6151-AF DESPITE Joey guilty of conspiring with Mario notwithstanding Marios
THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN categorical confession that Joey had no participation in the killings.
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Appellants contend that the mere fact that they are siblings does not
mean that Marios testimony was not credible. According to appellants,
II
an accused in a criminal case may competently testify for or against any
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN of his co-accused.
APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF EVIDENT PREMEDITATION. For the appellee, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) avers
that the guilt of appellant Joey Manlansing as a conspirator has been
III
proven beyond reasonable doubt. First, he admitted boxing Jorja in the
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE face. However, he explained that he only did this out of fear that Mario
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ABUSE OF might hear her shout and attack her. But, as stressed by the OSG, the
SUPERIOR STRENGTH AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF medico-legal evidence contradicts Joeys statement that he boxed Jorja
NIGHTTIME. only once. The autopsy report showed that Jorja sustained hematoma on
IV her face and chest, an indication that she was struck several times.
Second, the city medical officer, Dr. Concepcion, testified that from the
THE TRIAL COURT LIKEWISE ERRED IN
APPRECIATING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
nature and types of wounds found on the bodies of the victims, one
OF TREACHERY. person alone could not have inflicted the fatal injuries. The police
recovered two different types of weapons, namely, a bolo and a knife.
V Third, a comparison of the fingerprints taken from the crime scene and
19
Joeys standard fingerprints showed that two of his fingerprints were killing Magin. As Dr. Concepcion opined, simultaneously hacking and
recovered from the crime scene. Fourth, Mario admitted during the re- stabbing by using a long weapon and another short bladed weapon was
enactment of the incident that he and Joey ransacked the place looking impossible. That Mario would use both the bolo and the knife
for cash and jewelry. Fifth, rebuttal witness Mario Bartolome testified alternatively or successively is unlikely to be true and contrary to the
that he saw appellants step out of the Sorianos house on the night of the nature of reality. The logical conclusion would then be that, considering
killings wearing bloodstained shirts. Finally, Joeys flight from the two weapons, there were at least two attackers, each using one
Cabanatuan City belies his innocence regarding the killing of the deadly instrument.
Sorianos. Flight is an indication of guilt, for a truly innocent person
There are other reasons for us to discount the story of the brothers
would normally stand his ground, and grasp the first opportunity to
that only Mario single-handedly killed the spouses. For one, we find
defend himself and clear his name.
inconsistencies in their testimonies. In Joeys sworn statement, which he
While giving credence to the confession of Mario Manlansing that executed in front of witnesses and in the presence of counsel, he said he
he killed the couple, the trial court disbelieved appellants claim that he punched Jorja , . . . para walang makarinig . . . .xxxviii In his testimony in
alone did both killings and that Joey had no participation therein. court he said, Because she might be heard by my brother and he might
Instead, it relied on a chain of circumstances to show that appellants attack her.xxxix Again, Mario said that Joey tried to stop him from hurting
conspired to kill the Sorianos, and committed the crimes pursuant to that Jorja and while trying to grapple the bolo from him, Joey got wounded.xl
conspiracy. Yet, Joey in his sworn statement does not mention getting wounded and
said that he was merely elbowed by his brother when he tried to stop the
The conviction of Joey Manlansing is thus anchored on the premise
latter from harming Jorja.xli And, in his testimony in open court, he
that there was conspiracy between the brothers. Conspiracy exists when
merely said Mario hurled insulting words at him as they struggled over
two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
the bolo.xlii He does not say anything about being wounded. A major
of a crime and decide to commit it.xxxv Conspiracy does not require a
variation in Joeys statements that gives his reason for assaulting a victim
previous plan or agreement to commit an assault. It is sufficient that at
and an omission of an important detail, i.e. his being wounded, together
the time of the aggression all the accused manifested by their acts a
cast doubt on Marios disavowal that Joey did not participate in the
common intent or desire to attack.xxxvi Jurisprudence tells us consistently
killings. His story was obviously an afterthought to absolve his younger
that the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission
sibling. Testimonies to be believed must not only come from the mouth
of the crime may be considered to show an extant conspiracy.xxxvii The
of credible witnesses but should by themselves be credible, reasonable
testimonial and physical evidence on record reveals that Joeys conduct
and in accord with human experience.xliii
during and after the attack of his brother on the spouses was
conspiratorial. Most significant of these pieces of evidence is the finding In addition, the brothers footprints and fingerprints were lifted from
of Dr. Concepcion, that from the depth and nature of the victims the crime scene. Before they fled they both tried to wipe out traces of
wounds, the weapon used for hacking could not be the same as the one their foot and handprints. Both admitted that they ransacked the place
used for stabbing. The discovery of the two weapons, a bolo recovered for valuables after the spouses were slain. Lastly, on their way out of
in Tarlac where Mario hid and which he admitted was his, and a knife the compound, a witness whom they threatened to be butchered like a
recovered underneath Magins corpse, confirms the finding that the hog, saw them with their shirts bloodstained.
wounds were inflicted by two different weapons. If indeed, as Mario
All the foregoing details presented as evidence by the prosecution
confessed, he did the killings single-handedly, he would then be using a
more than suffices to show that the brothers were united and had
bolo and a knife either simultaneously, alternatively, or successively in
20
cooperated in a conspiracy to attack the spouses. In a conspiracy, the act of the Rules of Court favorable to the accused will show that the crimes
of one conspirator is the act of the other co-conspirator. Thus, Joey is of the brothers could not be qualified as murder. Only recently in People
equally responsible as his brother, Mario for the death of the Sorianos. vs. Gario Alba alias Mario Alba, G.R. No. 130523, promulgated
January 29, 2002, we ruled that pursuant to Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110
Mario and Joey were convicted on the basis of Marios sworn
of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedurexlviwhich took effect on
statements confessing to the killing of the spouses, the testimonies of
December 1, 2000, the information should state not only the designation
the witnesses for the prosecution, as well as on circumstantial evidence
of the offense and the acts and omissions constituting it but shall also
addressed before the trial court. To sustain a conviction on
specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.xlvii We noted in
circumstantial evidence, the following requisites must concur: (1) there
Gario Alba, that although the circumstance of treachery was stated in
is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences
the information, it was not alleged with specificity as qualifying the
are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances
killing to murder. Since the information in Gario Alba, failed to specify
is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.xliv The
treachery as a circumstance qualifying the killing to murder, treachery
circumstances themselves, taken together, should point to overt acts of
was considered only a generic aggravating circumstance, hence, we said
the accused that would logically point to the conclusion, and no other,
that the crime committed in Gario Alba was homicide and not murder.
that the accused is guilty of the crime charged and at the same time
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent.xlv So is it with the present case. None of the aggravating
circumstances were alleged in the informations nor in the amended
We agree with the trial court and the OSG that the chain of
informations with specificity as a qualifying circumstance elevating
circumstances, all of which have already been discussed, can only lead
either killing to murder. Thus, conformably with Gario Alba, the
to the conclusion that Joey and Mario cooperated to commit the killings.
offenses committed by appellants only constitute two counts of
To summarize, they are: (1) the medico-legal officers testimony that two
homicide and not murder. Since the penalty for homicide under 249 of
different bladed weapons were used, (2) his finding that one person
the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal, it is incorrect to sentence
alone could not have inflicted the wounds simultaneously, (3) the
both appellants to death.
recovery of two distinct bladed weapons, (4) Joeys admission that he
boxed Jorja (4) both appellants admission that they searched the victims In evaluating the circumstances that qualified the crimes to murder,
belongings for cash and valuables, (5) the presence of Joeys fingerprints the trial court considered, aside from evident premeditation, treachery,
at the scene of the crime, and (6) the testimony of the balut vendor that nighttime, and use of a deadly weapon, the aggravating circumstances
he saw the brothers with bloodstained shirts leaving the locus criminis of abuse of superior strength and dwelling.
together. Thus, we find no error committed by the trial court in holding
We note that abuse of superior strength and dwelling were not
that both appellants had conspired and are guilty beyond reasonable
alleged in the informations. In accordance then with Section 8 of Rule
doubt of killing Magin and Jorja Soriano.
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, abuse of superior
However, we are unable to agree now with the trial court that the strength and dwelling may not be appreciated to convict the brothers.
offenses committed by appellants could be qualified as murder. They Further, should there be a finding of treachery, then abuse of superior
are guilty only of double homicide. Hence, it is improper now to impose strength is absorbed by the former. We are thus left to review only the
the death penalty on each of them. allegation that the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation,
treachery, and nocturnity were present in the commission of the crimes.
A review of the informations filed against appellants, in relation to
prevailing law and jurisprudence as well as the newly adopted revisions At the outset, we shall discount nocturnity as an aggravating
21
circumstance, since in this case, the darkness of the night was not A: After switching off the TV, I stayed for ten minutes here and planning
purposely sought by the offenders to facilitate the commission of the how to have them out of their room and I thought of the telephone.
crime nor to ensure its execution with impunity. Q: After deciding about the method by which you can have them out of
The element of evident premeditation is manifested by the planning the room, what did you do?
and preparation undertaken by the offender prior to the commission of A: I got the bolo from my bag which was then placed on a chair. (witness
the crime.xlviii It is not presumed from the mere lapse of timexlix nor can pointing to a chair beside the door) I went upstairs and I placed it
it be deduced from sheer speculation.l An intangible matter, evident beside the laundry basket.
premeditation is exhibited from these circumstances --- (1) the time Q: What time was that?
when the offender has appeared determined to commit the crime; (2) the
act evidently indicating that the offender has clung to his determination; Atty. Jackie A. Garcia:
(3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the May I request of clarification. Maybe the time element be clarified as
crime and the execution thereof during which the offender could have to how long from the time to turn the TV off?
reflected upon the consequences of his act.li In the present case, all three
circumstances are present and clear from the testimony alone of Mario. Fiscal Amis:
The TSN reads: 7:15 when they brought the matter up, saka lang sila na-scold and then
again, they watched the TV until 10:00 oclock.
Q: That conversation about the seedling, how long did it take?
Q: Do you have a watch?
A: Only about fifteen minutes also, and then they went upstairs.
A: None, Maam.
Q: How long did you stay there after they left you watching the TV?
Q: What time approximately do you think was it when you went upstairs?
A: When they went up, my brother Joey also retired for the night and I
continued watching the TV and I turned off the TV at round 10:00 A: It took me ten minutes, after 10:00 oclock when I stayed in sala and it
oclock. took me around five minutes to position the bolo and the telephone
before I knock at their door.
Q: After turning off the TV, what else did you do?
Q: How did you know that it was already 10:00 oclock when you
A: And then, I planned the method by which I could kill.
switched off the TV?
Q: Sino? (Literally: Who?)
A: I was watching and there was no clock there. (witness pointing to the
Atty. Jackie A. Garcia: TV)
Pinlano mo bang patayin sila? (Literally: Did you plan to kill them?) Q: You said that you intended to kill the victim with the use of bolo. Was
that reason why you brought the bolo with you?
A: I did not plan. It was only after hearing the words of Mrs. Soriano that
she will have us killed. A: I have no intention to use the bolo to kill them initially, it was only
that I thought of the bolo when we were scolded.
Fiscal Amis:
Q: Was Majen Soriano able to shout for help?
When you switch off the TV at 10:00 oclock, how long did you stay
here in the sala before you went up? A: Only at the time when I first hacked him.

22
Q: Was he still able to shout for help again? chair and I immediately hacked him hitting his head and I saw blood
from his head, then he made several steps and again, I hacked his head
A: No more. and he fell down the stairs.
Q: When he fell down the stairs, was he able to shout for help? Q: Where did you get the bolo?
lii
A: He moaned when he fell down.
A: I placed it there.
Earlier, during the re-enactment, Mario testified, Q: When did you place it there?
Q: What did you do when you went upstairs? A: When I planned to kill him and before I knock at their door, I placed
A: The phone was ringing and I told them that there was somebody the bolo beside the laundry basket. When he fell down the stairs, I
calling, so I knocked. When I knocked, the door was opened by the followed him there. (witness pointing to the place where the body was
old man who came out of the room. then lying down) Majen rolled down the stairs and his head was near
the refrigerator (which is located at the bottom of the stairs). (witness
Q: Who was that old man? positioning himself with his left foot on the first step and the right foot
A: Majen. on the second step and demonstrating that he again hacked the victim
Majen Soriano)
Q: You are referring to Majen Soriano?
Q: Saan-saan tinamaan ang victim? (Literally: Where was the victim hit?)
A: Yes, Maam.
A: I hacked the old man on his head and then I went down and dragged
Q: When he went out of the room, what happened? him.
A: He went by the telephone which is near the staircase and he told me Q: Saan mo hinawakan? (Literally: Where did you hold him?)
that theres nobody in the telephone.
A: I placed my handkerchief in his mouth and dragged him by his mouth
Fiscal Ignacio E. Domingo: toward the room while my other hand was holding his clothes. I
dragged him inside the room and with the handkerchief stuffed in his
Talaga bang nagriring ang telepono? (Literally: Was the telephone
mouth was boiling with blood (kumukulo ng dugo).
ringing really?)
Q: Was he still alive when you dragged inside the room?
A: The telephone was not really ringing. It was just my alibi.
A: Buhay siya at nanginginig pa siya at doon na siya nalagutan ng
Fiscal Amis:
hininga.liii (Literally: He was alive and still shaking and only then did
At this juncture, PO3 Enrico Campose is posing as the old man Majen his breathing stop.) (Underscoring ours.)
Soriano. PO2 Soriano is positioning himself upon instruction of the
respondent Mario Manlansing beside a small table where the Based on these testimonies on record, we have no hesitation in
telephone was supposedly stationed. concluding that there was evident premeditation in the commission of
the crimes. Likewise, treachery therein attendant was duly proved.
Q: Then what happened?
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an
A: I gave a telephone to Majen Soriano and then I took two steps aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real
backward and I got the bolo which was placed beside the laundry
chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without any
basket. When he saw that I was holding a bolo, he sprang from his
risk to the aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the victims
23
part.liv While mere suddenness of attack does not automatically mean the Code, a plea of guilty on arraignment is a mitigating circumstance.
treachery,lv in these cases the narration of events before and during the
Insofar as Joey is concerned, there was no voluntary surrender and
commission of the attacks clearly indicate the presence of treachery.
no voluntary plea of guilt, thus no circumstance is available to him to
Appellants were allowed inside the house of the couple. They were even
mitigate his crime.
given supper after which the elderly couple went upstairs to their
bedroom. Appellants remained downstairs and continued watching The rule is that when both mitigating and aggravating
television. As the OSG correctly points out, the victims in extending circumstances attend the commission of the crime, the court shall
their hospitality to their tenants, had neither hint nor suspicion of the reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their
fate that Mario had in store for them. When Mario lured Magin to the number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty.lviii
phone, the latter was unaware he would be attacked.
In the case of Mario, the aggravating circumstance of evident
In Jorjas case, Joey claims he had boxed Jorja before Mario hacked premeditation is offset by his spontaneous and voluntary admission of
her to death. But according to Mario, she was asleep when he entered guilt. Thus, there is only treachery, treated as a generic aggravating
the bedroom. He said she shouted, but not loud, before he stuffed her circumstance, left to consider against him. Applying Article 64, par. 3,lix
mouth with a towel and slashed her neck. The attack on Jorja then was of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty imposable is reclusion temporal
also without warning and was treacherous. in its maximum period. Further applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the minimum penalty is imprisonment within the range of prision
We must reiterate at this juncture, however, that the evident
mayor as minimum and the maximum of reclusion temporal as
premeditation and the treachery in the present cases may only be
maximum.
considered as generic aggravating circumstances.
In Joeys case, no mitigating circumstance could be appreciated in
Coming now to the consideration of mitigating circumstances in the
his favor for unlike his brother he did not plead guilty. Two generic
commission of the offense, Mario contends that the trial court failed to
aggravating circumstances, evident premeditation and treachery, are
take into account the mitigating circumstances of his voluntary
thus to be considered against him. Applying Article 64, par. 6, of the
surrender and plea of guilty.
Revised Penal Code,lx and the Indeterminate Sentence Law Joey shall
For voluntary surrender to be a mitigating circumstance, the serve the same indeterminate sentence as Mario.
following must concur: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested;
A final word on damages. The trial court awarded the surviving
(2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the
heirs of the victims P250,000 by way of funeral and other expenses and
surrender was voluntary.lvi Recall that after the killings, Mario went into
as actual damages. In these cases, the prosecution failed to present any
hiding in Paniqui, Tarlac and only surrendered after the Cabanatuan
receipts to substantiate their claims for expenses allegedly incurred. To
City police were tipped on his whereabouts and sent a team to arrest
be entitled to such damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount
him. He did not spare the authorities the trouble and expense necessary
of loss with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent
to search and capture him. Clearly, Marios surrender was neither
proof and on the best evidence available to the injured party.lxi However,
spontaneous nor voluntary. Thus, the OSG was correct when it said that
as the heirs of the victims did actually incur funeral expenses, we are
Mario did not voluntarily surrender.
justified in awarding P10,000 not for purposes of indemnification, but
However, the trial court did err when it failed to appreciate Marios by way of temperate damages, in each case.lxii
plea of guilty to the two charges against him. Under Article 13 (7)lvii of
We also find the award of P500,000 in moral damages excessive.
24
Moral damages are not meant to enrich an injured party. In line with MODIFIED. Appellants Mario Manlansing and Joey Manlansing are
prevailing jurisprudence,lxiii the award in each case should be reduced to each declared GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of
P50,000. In addition, P50,000 as civil indemnity in each of these cases HOMICIDE defined in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Each
is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victims without need of appellant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for an indefinite period of
further proof other than the commission of the crime.lxiv 17 years, and 4 months as minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum
for each count of homicide, with accessory penalties provided by law.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
Further, each appellant is ORDERED to pay the heirs of each victim
27 in Cabanatuan City in the consolidated cases, Criminal Case No.
P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P10,000 as
6150-AF and Criminal Case No. 6151-AF, finding both Joey
temperate damages. Costs de officio.
Manlansing and Mario Manlansing, guilty of murder beyond reasonable
doubt for the death of both Magin Soriano and Jorja Soriano, is hereby SO ORDERED.

1. The trial court erred in finding and concluding that the finger
prints which were found impressed on the small silver box of the
complainant James C. Rockwell were identical to the fingerprints of
the accused.
G.R. No. L-38434 December 23, 1933
2. The trial court erred in findings and concluding that it was the
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, accused-appellant who took away the said small silver box from the
vs. room of Mrs. Rockwell and the valuables worth P320 belonging to
MARCIANO MEDINA y DIOKNO (alias MARIANO MEDINA, alias James C. Rockwell.
ALEJANDRO DOLA), defendant-appellant.
3. The trial court erred in finding and concluding that the accused-
Juan R. Chuidian for appellant. appellant is guilty of the crime of robbery as defined in article 299,
Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee. No. 3 of the Revised Penal Code for which the trial court sentenced
the accused to imprisonment of ten years and one day plus an
VICKERS, J.: additional imprisonment of ten years of prision mayor as recidivist
and to indemnify the said James C. Rockwell in the amount of P320
This is an appeal from the decision of Judge Anacleto Diaz in the Court of and to pay the cost of the action.
First Instance of Manila, finding the defendant guilty of robbery in an
inhabited house and of being a habitual delinquent, and sentencing him to The defendant was tried on a plea of not guilty to the following information:
suffer a principal penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor and
additional penalty of ten years of prision mayor because of being four times a The undersigned accuses Marciano Medina y Diokno alias Mariano
recidivist, to indemnify James C. Rockwell in the sum of P320, and to pay the Medina alias Alejandro Dola of the crime of robbery in an inhabited
costs. house, committed as follows:

Appellant's attorney makes the following assignments of error: That on or about the 12th day of February, 1932, during the
nighttime which was purposely sought, in the municipality of Pasay,

25
It appears from the evidence that while Agripino Ruiz, a Constabulary agent
Province of Rizal, Philippine Islands, within two and one-half miles and finger print expert, was investigating the robbery in question he went to
from the limits of the City of Manila, Philippine Islands and within see the accused, who was under arrest for breaking into the house of Capt.
the jurisdiction of this court, the said Marciano Medina y Diokno Davidson in Parañaque. Ruiz took the finger prints of the accused, and found
alias Mariano Medina alias Alejandro Dola did then and there when he compared them with his records that the accused had served three
willfully , unlawfully, and feloniously, and with intent of gain, break terms in Bilibid prison theft. Ruiz then compared a photograph of the
into and enter through the window by tearing the wire screen thereof, impression of the middle finger of defendant's right hand with a photograph of
an opening not intended for entrance or egress, of house No. 1155 the finger print on the top of the silver box stolen from the bedroom of Mrs.
F.B. Harrison Street, in said municipality of Pasay, the dwelling Rockwell, and found that they coincided in ten points. He concluded that the
house of James C. Rockwell, and, once inside said premises, take two impressions were from the same person, and that the finger print on the
steal, and carry away without the consent of the owner thereof the box was that of the defendant.
following personal property, to wit:
The defense of the accused was an alibi. He asserted that on the night of the
One (1) watch "Howard", gold, with an outside robbery in question he was at home with a sore foot. This contention of the
monogram containing the initials "JCR" valued at P200.00 defendant rests on his uncorroborated testimony.
One(1) "Green" wrist watch with a leather strap, valued at 120.00
It is now well settled that evidence as to the correspondence of finger prints is
admissible for the purpose of proving identity (Moon vs. State, Arizona
Total 320.00 Supreme Court, June 7, 1921, 198 Pac., 288; 16 A.L.R., 362, and the
authorities there cited). The history of the finger print system of identification
belongings to James C. Rockwell, to the damage and prejudice of the is stated in one of the leading cases, People vs. Sallow (165 N.Y. Supp., 915,
said owner thereof in the afore-mentioned sum of P320, Philippine 918), as follows:
currency.
Scientific authority declares that finger prints are reliable as a means
That, at that time of the commission of this offense, the said accused of identification. (10 Ency. Brit. [11th ed.], 376.) The first recorded
Marciano Medina y Diokno alias Mariano Medina alias Alejandro finger prints were used as a manual seal, to give a personal mark of
Dola has already been convicted three (3) times of the crime of theft authenticity to documents. Such prints are found in the Assyrian clay
by virtue of final judgments rendered by competent courts and is, tablets in the British Museum. Finger prints were first used to record
therefore, a habitual delinquent, his last date of conviction being on the identity of individuals officially by Sir William Herschel, in
October 23, 1924 and his date of release being on October 26, 1927. Bengal, to check forgeries by natives in India in 1858. (C. Ainsworth
Mitchell, in "Science and the Criminal" 1911, p. 51.) Finger print
At the trial the defendant admitted that Mr. Rockwell's house was robbed on records have been constantly used as a basis of information for the
the night of February 12, 1932, as alleged in the information, but denied that courts since Sir Francis Galton proved that the papillay ridges which
he was the author of the crime; admitted that a silver box, which had been cover the inner surface of the hands and the soles of the feet form
taken from the room of Mrs. Rockwell on the night of the robbery, was found patterns, the main details of which remain the same from the sixth
in the garden the next morning, and that when it was examined in the month of the embryonic period until decomposition sets in after
Intelligence Division of the Constabulary it showed a finger print on the top. death, and Sir Edward Henry, the head of the Metropolitan Police
The defendant further admitted the competency of the witness, Agripino Ruiz, Force of London, formulated a practical system of classification,
as a finger print expert; and the lastly the defendant admitted that he had been subsequently simplified by an Argentine named Vucetich. The
convicted three times of theft, his last conviction being on October 23, 1924 system has been in general use in the criminal courts in England
and his release on October 26, 1927. 26
A photograph showing an enlargement of the finger print found on the box
since 1891. It is claimed that by means of finger prints the was marked at the trial Exhibit A. Further enlargements of it are shown in
metropolitan police force of London during the 13 years from 1901 Exhibits A-1 and
to 1914 have made over 103,000 identifications, and the Magistrates' A-2. Exhibit B is an enlargement of a photograph of the impression of the
Court of New York City during the 4 years from 1911 to 1915 have middle finger of defendant's right hand, taken while he was a prisoner in
made 31,000 identifications, without error. (Report of Alfred H. Bilibid.
Hart, Supervisor, Fingerprint Bureau, Ann. Rep., N.Y. City
Magistrates' Courts, 1915.) Their value has been recognized by When asked which were the ten points of agreement between the two
banks and other corporations, passport bureaus of foreign impressions in question, the finger print expert replied that there were three
governments, and civil service commissions as a certain protection classes of characteristics, namely: the endings of the ridges, the bifurcation of
against impersonation. the ridges, and the core. The ten points of identity, which were marked on the
photographs, are as follows:
It was held in 1909 by the Lord Chief Justice of England that the
court may accept the evidence of finger prints, though it be the sole 1. Upward end of a ridge,
ground of identification. (Castleton's Case, 3 Crim. App. C., 74.) 2. Core,
3. Both ends of a short ridge,
In the case at bar the principal contentions of appellant's attorney are that the 4. Both ends of a short ridge,
identification was incomplete and unreliable because the imprint of only one 5. Downward end of a ridge,
finger was found on the box, and that was blurred, and could not served as a 6. Upward end of a ridge,
basis of comparison. There is a little merit in this argument. Although a portion 7. Bifurcation,
of the impression on the box was somewhat blurred, it did not seriously 8. Upward end of a ridge,
interfere with the comparison of the two finger prints. It would of course have 9. Upward end of a ridge,
been more satisfactory for the purpose of comparison if there had been an 10. Bifurcation.
impression of all the fingers of the thief on the box, but we are not justified in
rejecting the evidence of record merely because it might be more complete. The witness stated that in his opinion eight characteristics are sufficient to
identify a person. According to Frederick Kuhn of the Bureau of Criminal
Referring to the care necessary in photographing accidental imprints, Identification, Police Department of the City of New York, in the "Finger Print
Wentworth and Wilder in their work, "Personal Identification" (1932), say that Instructor", p.12, "characteristics" are the peculiarities of the ridges, such as
these imprints at best will be poor; that one will never find an accidental abrupt endings, bifurcations, the formation of what is termed an island, short
imprint that is absolutely perfect; that it is seldom, indeed, that a very good ridge lines, ridge dots, some peculiarity as to the information of the delta or
one is found (p.260). core; in fact any peculiarity out of the ordinary may be considered a
characteristic point, and serve as a positive means of identification.
The only important question is whether or not the evidence identifies the
accused beyond a reasonable doubt as the person whose finger print appears The Galton details, the ends, forks, islands and so on, are so numerous and so
on the box, because the box was taken from the bedroom of Mrs. Rockwell on variable that even in a small area a duplication is impossible; so far as we know
the night of the robbery, and the finger print thereon, if that of the accused, all the infinite possibilities in the formation of the ridges are widely open in
could have been made only on the occasion when the robbery was committed. each individual case, so that it is quite safe to say that no two people in the
world can have, even over a small area, the same set of details, similarly related
It might be here stated that the finger prints of the persons living in Mr. to the individual units; the only possible confusion might result from an area
Rockwell's house were taken, but that they did not correspond to the so small and so featureless as to show nothing but complete and parallel ridges,
impression in question. 27
specialist might well have been called to verify the findings of the
and without details, and could never occur in connection with the formation of Constabulary expert.
a pattern, where the ridges are called upon to make eccentric turns, and to fill
up spaces of irregular shape (Wentworth & Wilder, p. 126). The only evidence for the defendant was his uncorroborated testimony that on
the night in question he was at home in San Luis, Batangas. In weighing the
Explaining the ten points of identity, the expert witness in the case at bar testimony of the defendant it is proper to take into account the fact that he has
testified that he found four endings of ascending ridges in Exhibit B that already been convicted three times of theft.
corresponded exactly to those of Exhibit A; that as to the number and location
with respect to the core, which he marked 2 in both photographs, he found that Robbery in an inhabited house is punished by prision mayor in its medium
they agreed; that he found in Exhibit B two bifurcations or forks that period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the value of the property
corresponded exactly to those in Exhibit A as to number and location; that he taken exceeds P250, if the malefactor entered the house by breaking a window,
found in Exhibit B a short ridge, the two ends of which he marked 3 and 4, that as in the present case, but when the offender does not carry arms, as in this
was identical with the corresponding short ridge in Exhibit A, which he also case, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed (article 299 of the
marked 3 and 4. Revised Penal Code). The penalty next lower in degree is prision correccional
in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or from two
The attorney for the appellant calls attention to the fact that there was the years, four months, and one day of prision correccional to eight years of
impression of another finger on the that was not identified. That is true, but as prision mayor. In the present case in fixing the principal penalty, we must take
it was the impression of only a small part of the ball of a finger and was blurred, into account the aggravating circumstances of recidivism and nocturnity. The
the expert did not make any particular study of it. It may have been made by principal penalty imposed on the accused is therefore reduced to six years and
the person who picked up the box in the garden. In any event it does not alter a one day of prision mayor.
the fact that a finger print identical with that of the defendant in ten
homologous points of comparison was found on the box. The additional penalty of ten years imposed by the lower court is the maximum
of the maximum for a fourth conviction. We think that under the circumstances
Although there is some differences of opinion among the authorities as to what of this case the minimum authorized by law would be sufficient, and the
constitutes proof of identity, the older writers regarding twelve points as additional penalty of the appellant is accordingly reduced to six years and one
necessary to prove certain identity; and more than that for absolute day.
identification, the more recent writers think that six or eight homologous points
of comparison leave no room for reasonable doubt. "In the end it is the Modified as hereinabove stated, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with
microscopic identity of the ridge characteristics (Galton's minutiae) that settles the costs against the appellant.
the question." (Personal Identification, p. 263.)
Avanceña, C.J., Street., Abad Santos, and Butte, JJ., concur.
In the present case the qualifications of the expert witness were admitted. He
stated under oath that in his opinion the finger print in question is that of the
defendant, and gave the reasons for his conclusion, which seem to us to be
reasonable and to be sustained by the best authorities available. No reason has
been adduced that would justify us in rejecting his findings and conclusion.
We wish to add, however, that the prosecuting attorney ought to have
addressed further questions to the expert witness to show how he arrived at his
findings, that is, his method of examination and comparison, his
measurements, and other pertinent facts. Another competent and experienced
28
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1575

REQUIRING PRACTITIONERS OF DENTISTRY TO KEEP


RECORDS OF THEIR PATIENTS

WHEREAS, the identification of persons is a necessary factor in solving


crimes and in settling certain disputes such as claims for damages, insurance,
and inheritance;

WHEREAS, in those cases where the identification of persons cannot be


established through the regular means, identification through definition has
been proven to be necessary and effective;

WHEREAS, however, records of dentition of persons are often not available


due to the lack of systematic recording by dental practitioners of the dental
history of their patients.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the


Philippines, by virtue of the powers in me vested by the Constitution, do
hereby order and decree the following:

Section 1. It shall be obligatory upon all practitioners of dentistry to keep and


maintain an accurate and complete record of the dentition of all their patients
which shall include a history and description of the patient's dentition and the
treatments made thereon.

Section 2. Upon the lapse of ten years from the last entry, dental practitioners
shall turn over the dental records of their patients to the National Bureau of
Investigation for record purposes: Provided, that the said practitioners may
retain copies thereof for their own files.

Section 3. Any violation of the provisions of this Decree shall be punishable


by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos.

Section 4. This Decree shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 11th day of June, in the year of Our Lord,
nineteen hundred and seventy-eight.
29
30
31
32

You might also like