Del Rosario v. People


Del Rosario v. People

G.R. No. 235739

July 22, 2019


                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.


                Whether or not the CA erred in convicting Edwin for robbery.


                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