PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BOYAX PACAÑA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal filed by accused-appellant of the Decision^[1] dated June 2, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Seventh Judicial Region, Branch 14, Cebu City in Crim Case No. CBU-83440 which found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery under paragraph 4, Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Facts

Version of the Prosecution

On May 26, 2007, around 9:00 PM, AAA^[2] was tending their billiard hall outside their residential subdivision at Phase 2, St. Jude Acres, Bulacao, Cebu City. While AAA’s back was turned from the door, somebody appeared behind him who was later identified as accused-appellant Boyax Pacana.

Accused-appellant boxed AAA’s nape which caused him to stagger. Accused-appellant then took this opportunity to grab from AAA his Samsung T809 cellular phone valued at P20,000.00. When AAA turned his back, he saw accused-appellant about two meters away, staring at him. Upon recognizing accused-appellant’s face, accused-appellant then scampered towards the interior portion of San Vicente, Bulacao, Cebu City.

AAA did not bother asking for help from the people inside the billiard hall. AAA, instead, rushed home to report the incident to his brother and had the accident blottered at the Police Station.

The Charge

In the Information^[3] dated September 5, 2007 filed against him, accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Robbery, as follows:

“That on or about the 26^th day of May, 2007, at about 9:00 o’ clock in the evening in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, with intent to gain and by means of violence and intimidation upon person, to wit: by boxing one VNA, a minor, 16 years of age, while he was tending to their billiard hall located near the skywalk in Bulacao, Cebu City, thereby hitting him on his nape, and causing the latter to stagger, and without the consent of said VNA, did then and there take, steal and carry away a Samsung 1809 Cellular phone worth P20,000.00 belonging to said VNA, to the damage and prejudice of the latter, in the amount aforestated.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Subsequently, accused-appellant was arraigned and pleaded “not guilty” to the crime charged.

Trial ensued. The prosecution presented AAA as witness. On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant and Mirasol Pacana.

Version of Accused-appellant

Accused-appellant narrated that during the incident in question, AAA pointed a pistol at him prompting him to flee. He did not, however, report the incident to the police. Subsequently, AAA and his brother, as well as the driver, went to their house armed with a baseball bat and hand gun. Again, he ran away but accused-appellant shot at him using the gun. He was not, however, hit.

On June 27, 2007, AAA’s brother punched him and fired a warning shot at him. Accused-appellant’s sister then reported the incident to the police.

The RTC Ruling

Thereafter, on June 2, 2011, the RTC rendered a Decision^[4] against accused-appellant, the pertinent portion of which reads:

“Violence was inflicted upon VNA when, before the taking of the Samsung 1809 cellular phone, he was hit by the accused on his nape which caused him to be a little bit dizzy and is described and punishable under the fourth paragraph of Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code with prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period.

Since the above penalty consists of at least one (1) year imprisonment, the beneficient effects of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended) is applicable which would result in lowering the above penalty to one (1) degree lower which would be under Appendix “A” of the Table of Penalties: prision correcional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. In the absence of any aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the said penalty shall be imposed in its medium period.

As the cellphone was not recovered, accused is liable to pay VNA the price thereof in the amount of Php 20,000.00 as his civil liability to him.

Wherefore, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is rendered finding accused BOYAX PACANA a.k.a. DIONESIA PACANA, JR. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery under paragraph 4, Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS, ONE (1) MONTH and ELEVEN (11) DAYS to EIGHT (8) YEARS and TWENTY (20) DAYS of prision correcional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period, medium.

Accused is also ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.

SO ORDERED.”

Aggrieved, accused-appellant now comes to this Court seeking a reversal of his conviction and assigning the following errors:

I.“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME;

II.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT .”

THIS COURT’S RULING:

I.
Positive Identification

The primary issue for resolution in the case at bar is the determination of whether or not the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of accused-appellant of the crime of robbery.

Accused-appellant contends that the court a quo erred in convicting him of the crime of robbery considering that there was no ratio decidendi on how positive identification was made. After a narrative summary of AAA’s testimony, the trial court incorrectly made a ready conclusion that neither cross-examination nor re-cross on AAA destroyed what was established in the direct examination. Accused-appellant points out that during the trial of AAA, he himself admitted that after he was boxed on the nape, he lost consciousness so that he could not have identified the perpetrator of the crime. He attested, thus:

“Q: And where was this person situated in relation to you when he delivered the blow to your nape?
A: He was right at my back, I was right near the door of the billiard hall.

Q: And you mentioned that when you staggered he took your cellphone from you, is that correct?
A: Yes Sir.”
TSN, June 18, 2009

“Q: and why was he able to get the cellphone from you?
A: It’s when somebody punches you at your nape, you feel conscious a little while and then I did not have enough strength to take my phone from him, so he grabbed it right away.
Xxx xxx xxx

Q: So, he was already running away, Mr. witness, when you saw him?
A: Yes sir.
TSN, June 18, 2009, p. 4
xxx xxx xxx

Cross and re-cross examination by Atty. Bagacay:
Q: You also mentioned that when you were punched on your nape, you lost consciousness for a while, am I correct?
A: Yes sir.
Xxx xxx xxx

Q: You said that you were punched on the nape that is why as you said you lost consciousness, am I correct?
A: Yes sir.

Q: And after that punch was delivered you will agree with me that you were moved by that punch, am I correct?
A: Yes sir.

Q: So considering that the same was delivered from your back side, you were moved forward, am I correct?
A: Yes sir.

Q: So you were not facing the accused or the one who punches you from behind, am I correct?
A: I face him after he attacked me.

Q: But you mentioned that you lost your strength, am I correct?
A: Yes sir.

Q: That is why you were not able to immediately turn your head to where the punch came from, am I correct?
A: Yes sir.”
TSN, June 18, 2009

Accused-appellant claims his version is more believable, alleging that there was an altercation which transpired between him and the complainant AAA. Since AAA pointed his gun at him, accused-appellant protected himself by punching AAA. Accused-appellant posits that if there were a few people in the area as testified by AAA, any one of them could have come to the rescue of AAA after he was allegedly boxed and robbed. After all, accused-appellant added that he did not immediately run away after the taking of the cellphone. It is also accused-appellant’s submission that it was surprising that instead of calling for immediate assistance on the spot, AAA went home to seek help from his family.

Accused-appellant argues that in instances such as this where the identification is tainted with irregularity, serious doubt exists on the culpability of the accused and as such, there is no need to avail of the defense of denial or alibi. While the defenses of alibi and denial are inherently weak, they are so only in the face of an effective identification. Relying on People vs Crispin, GR No. 128360, March 2, 2000, the Supreme Court held that before the doctrine that positive identification prevails over mere denial and alibi can be made applicable, it is necessary that the credibility of the eyewitness be first put beyond question.

Accused-appellant further asseverates that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible in itself. There can be no better gauge by which a witness’ testimony may be evaluated and analyzed than the ordinary common human experience. Thus, as between the testimonies of two contending parties, accused-appellant asserts that it is the testimony of the accused that is more credible.

We reject accused-appellant’s argument.

The issue of whether or not accused-appellant was identified by the prosecution eyewitness as the perpetrator of the crime is a question of credibility.^[5] It is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial judge was in a better position to determine their credibility.^[6]

Accused-appellant’s insistence that AAA could not have identified the perpetrator of the crime since he lost consciousness and staggered after a blow was delivered to his neck cannot bolster his position. Records show that AAA was consistent and straightforward in recounting the incident while positively identifying accused-appellant as the one who hit him and grabbed his Samsung T809 cellular phone valued at P20,000.00. In fact, during the re-direct examination, AAA sufficiently explained that he felt dizzy only for a split second after he was hit on the nape, but that there was enough time for him to identify and recognize accused-appellant as perpetrator thereof. AAA testified, as follows:

“Q: Now Mr. witness, you said earlier that you lost consciousness after you were struck by the accused, correct?
A: Could you let me defy? (sic)

Q: No no , you said that you lost consciousness?
A: Yes sir.

Q: And how long was it that you regained your consciousness after being struck by the accused?
A: Just split seconds, I just felt dizzy. I lost my strength, I lost my phone to the assailant.

Q: When you say you lost consciousness you did not actually blackout?
A: No sir.

Q; And when you said that he took a few steps from, where was he facing, Mr. witness?
A: He was facing me Sir.

Q: You were facing each other at that time?
A: Yes sir.”
TSN, June 2009, p. 10

In his re-cross examination, AAA reiterated that he was able to see clearly the face of accused-appellant before he fled, thus:

“Q: You said that you were punched on the nape that is why as you said you lost consciousness, am I correct?
A: Yes sir.

Q: And after that punched (sic) was delivered you will agree with me that you were moved by that punch, am I correct?
A: Yes sir.

Q: So considering that the same was delivered from your back side you were moved forward am I correct?
A: Yes sir.

Q: So you were not facing the accused or the one who punches you from behind, am I correct?
A: I face him after he attacked me.

Q: But you mentioned that you lost your strength, am I correct?
A: Yes sir.

Q: That is why you were not able to immediately turn your head to where the punch came from, am I correct?
A; Yes sir.

Q: That is why you will agree with me that you were not actually face to face by the accused, am I correct?
A; Before the incident, but after right away when he took my phone I had a chance to stare at him, because he did not ran away immediately.”^[7]

A careful scrutiny of the records reveals that there is nothing to support accused-appellant’s assertion that his identification was tainted with inconsistencies and doubt. There is nothing in the records revealing that AAA completely lost consciousness or blacked out for several minutes preventing him from seeing the perpetrator’s face. There was enough illumination in the room and he was able to quickly recover from the blow to his nape. He was able to turn his head after he was punched and saw accused-appellant’s face when they stared at each other. AAA testified in a categorical and straightforward manner on the events leading to the robbery of his cellphone. As opposed to accused-appellant’s self-serving testimony, we are inclined to give more credence to the complainant’s version. Well-settled is the rule that when an eyewitness’ testimony is straightforward and unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, then it deserves full faith and credit and cannot be discarded. Once found credible, the testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Besides, it is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to ascertain the appearance of their attackers and observe the manner in which the crime was committed. Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression on the victim’s minds which cannot be easily erased from their memory.^[8] Likewise, accused-appellant failed to show that the prosecution witness was prompted by any ill motive to falsely testify or wrongfully accuse him of so grave a crime. In the absence of any evidence to show that the witness was actuated by any improper motive, his identification of the accused-appellant as the author of the crime shall be given full faith and credit.^[9]

II
Elements of Robbery

All the elements of the crime of robbery as defined in Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code were duly proven by the prosecution, viz: (a) that there be personal property belonging to another; (b) that there is unlawful taking of that property; (c) that the taking is with intent to gain; and (d) that there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. In this case, personal property, the Samsung T809 cellular phone belonging to the victim was taken from the owner, AAA. The taking was with intent to gain since the cellphone was worth P20,000.00. The taking was likewise done with violence against AAA by boxing him at the nape and then grabbing the cellphone from his possession.

Therefore, accused-appellant relies only in denial and alibi as his defenses. It is a cardinal rule that for alibi to prosper, credible proof that it was impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime is indispensable.^[10] For alibi to prevail, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission, and not merely that he was somewhere else.^[11] In this case, there was no physical impossibility adduced by accused-appellant in the trial. He merely denied boxing and robbing AAA on the date in question. On the contrary, he narrated that AAA pointed a pistol at him on May 26, 2007 forcing him to escape. He added that AAA also fired a warning shot at him on June 27, 2007 but he was not hit. Accused-appellant’s sister claimed that they reported the incident to the police but no police blotter was presented to prove such allegation.

Denial is intrinsically a weak defense. It must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to be credible. Correspondingly, courts view the defense of alibi with suspicion and caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be fabricated easily.^[12] Here, accused-appellant’s bare, self-serving version of events was uncorroborated by a credible witness.

Accused-appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi are thus unavailing and worthless. To reiterate, alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and it is not at all persuasive in the instant case against the positive identification of the eyewitness. Too in People vs Gonzales,^[13] the Supreme Court held that positive identification by an eyewitness has greater weight than the unsubstantiated denial of the accused. Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witness and the negative averments of appellant, the former indisputably deserve more credence and evidentiary weight.

Penalties

Article 294 (4) of the Revised Penal Code provides for the penalty for simple robbery, to wit:

“Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons — Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer.
xxx          xxx         xxx
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when in the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263.”

The felony committed by accused-appellant was robbery by means of violence against or intimidation of persons which, under Article 294 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, is punishable with prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in the medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused-appellant is entitled to a minimum term to be taken within the penalty next lower in degree to that imposed by the Code. Hence, the court a quo correctly imposed the penalty of imprisonment meted to accused-appellant.

By way of restitution, accused-appellant is liable to pay the amount of P20,000.00 which is the value of the cellphone robbed from the victim.^[14]

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated June 2, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Seventh Judicial Region, Branch 14, Cebu city in Crim Case No. CBU-83440, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the amount of P 20,000.00 representing the stolen cellphone.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Maxino, P.A.A., and Francisco, R.C., JJ., concur.

^[2] Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with the real names of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent him or her, both to protect his or her privacy. (People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 421-426.)

^[3] Records, p. 1

^[4]  Rollo, p. 12

^[5] GR No. 181138, December 3, 2012

^[6] People v. Edem, G.R. No. 130970, 27 February 2002.

^[7]  TSN, June 18, 2009, p. 11

^[8] People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 116918, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 259, 269.

^[9] People v. Baniega, G.R. No. 139578, 15 February 2002.

^[10] People vs Llandelar, GR No. 123138-39, November 8, 2001

^[11]  People vs Baltazar, GR No. 129933, February 26, 2001

^[12] People vs dela Cruz, GR No. 152176, October 1, 2003

^[13]  GR No. 130507, July 28, 1999

^[14] Following the ruling in Eduarte vs People, GR No. 176566, April 16, 2009