The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ardo Bacero for Robbery with Homicide, emphasizing that positive identification by a credible witness outweighs defenses of alibi and denial. This case underscores the importance of eyewitness testimony and the reliability of in-court identifications, even when out-of-court identifications may have procedural imperfections. The ruling clarifies the elements required to prove Robbery with Homicide under Philippine law and reinforces the principle that a clear and convincing identification of the accused is sufficient for conviction, especially when coupled with evidence of the crime.

When Eyewitness Account Trumps Alibi: A Case of Robbery and Loss

This case revolves around the tragic events of March 24, 2003, when Virgilio San Juan, Jr. and Juliet Dumdum-Bimot were attacked. The central legal question is whether the eyewitness testimony of Juliet, identifying Ardo Bacero as the perpetrator, is sufficient to overcome Bacero’s defense of alibi and denial, ultimately leading to a conviction for Robbery with Homicide. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both found Bacero guilty, relying heavily on Juliet’s positive identification. The Supreme Court was asked to review this decision, focusing on the admissibility and credibility of the eyewitness account in light of the accused’s defenses.

The prosecution presented compelling evidence, primarily through the testimony of Juliet Dumdum-Bimot, who recounted the events of the robbery and the subsequent stabbing of Virgilio San Juan, Jr. Juliet positively identified Ardo Bacero as the one who stabbed the victim. Senior Police Officer 1 Rogelio V. Marundan testified that Juliet identified Bacero a few days after the incident as someone familiar in the neighborhood. This identification led to Bacero’s arrest and subsequent implication of other individuals involved in the crime. The defense argued that Juliet’s identification was doubtful, pointing out inconsistencies in her statements and claiming mistaken identity.

The defense presented the alibi that he was at home gathering wood during the incident and claimed that he was coerced into admitting the crime through torture. However, the court found these defenses unconvincing, especially in light of the positive identification by the eyewitness. The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized the importance of positive identification, stating that “denial cannot prevail over the witnesses’ positive identification of the accused-appellant.”

In evaluating the credibility of Juliet’s identification, the Court applied the totality of circumstances test, which considers several factors to determine the reliability of out-of-court identifications. These factors include the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’s degree of attention, the accuracy of prior descriptions, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness, the time between the crime and the identification, and the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. Applying these factors, the Court found that Juliet had ample opportunity to see the assailants, and her identification of Bacero was consistent and certain.

The Court addressed the admissibility of Bacero’s extra-judicial confession, noting that it was inadmissible because it was not made in writing and in the presence of counsel or other individuals as required by R.A. No. 7438. According to the law:

“Section 2. (d) – Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.”

Despite the inadmissibility of the confession, the Court emphasized that the positive identification of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator was sufficient to warrant his conviction. Building on this principle, the Court highlighted the established jurisprudence that alibi and denial are the weakest of defenses and cannot prevail over positive identification.

The crime committed was Robbery with Homicide, defined under Article 294, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) intent to gain; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery, homicide was committed. All these elements were sufficiently established in this case.

The Supreme Court also considered the presence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The Court agreed with the CA’s finding that the combined force and physical strength of the assailants overwhelmed the victim, leaving him defenseless. This aggravating circumstance was taken into account in determining the appropriate penalty.

In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded. The Court increased the amounts for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The actual damages were adjusted to reflect only those expenses supported by receipts, totaling P75,960.30. The Court also awarded indemnity for loss of earning capacity, calculated at P2,519,405.86.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the positive identification of the accused by an eyewitness was sufficient to convict him of Robbery with Homicide, despite his defenses of alibi and denial.
What is Robbery with Homicide under Philippine law?	Robbery with Homicide is a special complex crime defined as the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation, resulting in the death of a person on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.
What is the “totality of circumstances test”?	The “totality of circumstances test” is used to determine the reliability of out-of-court identifications, considering factors like the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal, their degree of attention, and the certainty of the identification.
Why was the accused’s extra-judicial confession deemed inadmissible?	The confession was inadmissible because it was not made in writing and in the presence of counsel or other individuals, as required by R.A. No. 7438, protecting the rights of persons under custodial investigation.
What role did the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength play in the decision?	The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was considered, as the assailants used their combined force to overwhelm the victim, contributing to the severity of the crime.
How were the damages calculated in this case?	Damages included civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, actual damages (based on receipts), and indemnity for loss of earning capacity, calculated using the victim’s income and life expectancy.
Can alibi and denial be sufficient defenses in a Robbery with Homicide case?	Alibi and denial are generally considered weak defenses and are unlikely to prevail against a credible and positive identification by an eyewitness.
What is the significance of R.A. No. 7438 in this case?	R.A. No. 7438 protects the rights of individuals under custodial investigation, ensuring that extra-judicial confessions are made voluntarily and with proper legal safeguards.

This case reinforces the principle that positive identification by a credible witness can be a decisive factor in convicting an accused, even in the face of alibi and denial. The ruling highlights the importance of reliable eyewitness testimony and the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in custodial investigations. The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the elements of Robbery with Homicide and the factors considered in assessing the credibility of eyewitness accounts, offering valuable guidance for future cases.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Bacero, G.R. No. 208527, July 20, 2016