Del Rosario v. People
G.R. No. 235739
July 22, 2019
FACTS:
The RTC
and CA convicted Edwin for the crime of robbery. In the afternoon of January
30, 2012, Charlotte and Kim Evangelista Casiano (Kim) flagged down a jeepney
going to G-Mall. After boarding said jeepney, two male persons, who were later
identified to be Roxan and Edwin, also boarded the vehicle. Roxan sat across
Charlotte while Edwin sat on the side of Kim with a woman passenger in between
them. While on board the jeepney, Charlotte and Kim heard Roxan and Edwin
talking about who will pay the fare. Upon reaching the corner of Quirino Street
near the Villa Abrille Building, the jeepney stopped at a red light. Kim saw
Edwin giving the signal to Roxan and heard him say "tirahi na nang babaye
bai" Thereafter, Roxan snatched the necklace of Charlotte, disembarked
from the jeepney, and ran away. Edwin also disembarked.Charlotte shouted
"magnanakaw". She and Kim disembarked from the jeepney and tried to
run after Roxan but they were unable to catch him.They later learned that Roxan
was apprehended. With Roxan in custody, the police decided to conduct a follow-up
operation. PO3 Rizalito Clapiz III
testified on cross-examination that Roxan provided the police with the
information that his companion is a bald person. The police went to the address
of Edwin and upon Roxan's confirmation that he is his companion, Edwin was
apprehended. On the same day, the police, at 10:00 in the evening, requested
that Charlotte and Kim identify Edwin. Due to health reasons, Charlotte and Kim
were only able to go to the police station the next day. They both identified
Edwin as the bald person who was the companion of Roxan in the alleged robbery.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the CA erred in convicting Edwin for robbery.
HELD:
No. In
the case at bar, the Court adopts the CA's findings and conclusion as to
Edwin's guilt. The Court is convinced that the elements of taking of personal
property which belongs to another person without his consent have been
established and such taking was with intent to gain. The Court consistently
held that intent to gain is a mental state whose existence is demonstrated by a
person's overt acts. As to Edwin's allegation that the prosecution failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the required identification that he was one of
the persons responsible for the crime charged, the Court agrees with the CA
when it ruled as follows:
Indeed, a perusal of the
testimonies of both witnesses on direct and cross-examinations would show that
they were consistent on their narrative of the incident and of the
participation of appellant Del Rosario. Thus, there is no reason to depart from
the findings of the trial court especially since "[t]he direct
appreciation of testimonial demeanor during examination, veracity, sincerity
and candor was foremost the trial court's domain, not that of a reviewing court
that had no similar access to the witnesses at the time they testified."
No comments:
Post a Comment