8/15/2017 G.R. No.

199877

TodayisTuesday,August15,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.199877August13,2012

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,
vs.
ARTUROLARAyORBISTA,AccusedAppellant.

VILLARAMA,JR.,*

DECISION

REYES,J.:

ThisisanautomaticappealfromtheDecision1datedJuly28,2011oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CRHC
No. 03685. The CA affirmed the Decision2 dated October 1, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City,
Branch268,findingArturoLara(Lara)guiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofrobberywithhomicide.

OnJune14,2001,anInformation3chargingLarawithrobberywithhomicidewasfiledwiththeRTC:

On or about May 31, 2001, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused,armedwithagun,conspiringandconfederatingtogetherwithoneunidentifiedpersonwhois
still atlarge, and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to gain, and by
means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
steal and divest from Joselito M. Bautista cash money amounting to 230,000.00 more or less and
belonging to San Sebastian Allied Services, Inc. represented by Enrique Sumulong that on the
occasionofsaidrobbery,thesaidaccused,withintenttokill,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyand
feloniouslyattack,assault,andshootsaidJoselitoM.Bautistawiththesaidgun,therebyinflictingupon
thelattermortalwoundswhichdirectlycausedhisdeath.

Contrarytolaw.4

FollowingLaraspleaofnotguilty,trialensued.Theprosecutionpresentedthree(3)witnesses:EnriqueSumulong
(Sumulong),SPO1BernardCruz(SPO1Cruz)andPO3EfrenCalix(PO3Calix).

Sumulongtestifiedthat:(a)hewasanaccountingstaffofSanSebastianAlliedServices,Inc.(SanSebastian)(b)
onMay31,2001andataround9:00inthemorning,hewithdrewtheamountof230,000.00fromtheMetrobank
Mabini Branch, Pasig City to defray the salaries of the employees of San Sebastian (c) in going to the bank, he
rode a pickup and was accompanied by Virgilio Manacob (Manacob), Jeff Atie (Atie) and Joselito Bautista
(Bautista)(d)heplacedtheamountwithdrawninablackbagandimmediatelyleftthebank(e)ataround10:30in
the morning, while they were at the intersection of Mercedes and Market Avenues, Pasig City, Lara suddenly
appearedatthefrontpassengersideofthepickupandpointedagunathimstating,"Akinnaangpera,iyongbag,
nasaan?"(f)Bautista,whowasseatedattheback,shouted,"Wagmongibigay"(g)heedingBautistasadvice,he
threwthebaginBautistasdirection(h)aftergettingholdofthebag,Bautistaalightedfromthepickupandran(i)
seeinBautista,Lararanafterhimwhilefiringhisgun(j)whenhehadthechancetogetoutofthepickup,heran
towardsMercedesPlazaandcalleduptheofficeofSanSebastiantorelaytheincident(k)whenhewentbackto
wherethepickupwasparked,hewenttotherearportionofthevehicleandsawbloodontheground(l)hewas
informed by one bystander that Bautista was shot and the bag was taken away from him (m) when barangay
officials and the police arrived, he and his two (2) other companions were brought to the police station for
investigation(n)onJune7,2001,whileonhiswaytoBarangayMaybunga,PasigCity,hesawLarawalkingalong
Dr.PilapilStreet,BarangaySanMiguel,PasigCity(o)healertedthepoliceandLarawasthereafterarrestedand
(p) at the police station, he, Atie and Manacob identified Lara as the one who shot and robbed them of San
Sebastiansmoney.5

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_199877_2012.html 1/9
8/15/2017 G.R. No. 199877
SPO1Cruztestifiedthat:(a)hewasassignedattheFollowUpUnitofthePasigCityPoliceStation(b)ataround
7:55intheeveningofJune7,2001,SumulongwenttothepolicestationandinformedhimthathesawLarawalking
alongDr.PilapilStreet(c)four(4)policeofficersandSumulongwenttoDr.PilapilStreetwheretheysawLara,who
Sumulongidentified(d)theythenapproachedLaraandinvitedhimforquestioning(e)atthepolicestation,Lara
was placed in a lineup where he was positively identified by Sumulong, Manacob and Atie and (f) after being
identified,Larawasinformedofhisrightsandsubsequentlydetained.6

PO3Calixtestifiedthat:(a)hewasamemberoftheCriminalInvestigationUnitofthePasigCityPoliceStation(b)
on May 31, 2001, he was informed of a robbery that took place at the corner of Mercedes and Market Avenues,
Pasig City (c) he, together with three (3) other police officers, proceeded to the crime scene (d) upon arriving
thereat, one of the police officers who were able to respond ahead of them, handed to him eleven (11) pieces of
emptyshellsandsix(6)deformedslugsofa9mmpistol(e)aspartofhisinvestigation,heinterviewedSumulong,
Atie,Manacobatthepolicestationand(f)beforeBautistadied,hewasabletointerviewBautistaatthehospital
wherethelatterwasbroughtaftertheincident.7

Inhisdefense,Laratestifiedthat:(a)hewasaplumberwhoresidedatDr.PilapilStreet,SanMiguel,PasigCity(b)
on May 31, 2001, he was at his house, digging a sewer trench while his brother, Wilfredo, was constructing a
comfortroom(c)theywereworkingfrom8:00inthemorninguntil3:00intheafternoon(d)onJune7,2001andat
around7:00intheevening,whilehewasatthehouseofoneofhiscousins,policeofficersarrivedandaskedhimif
hewasArturoLara(e)afterconfirmingthathewasArturoLara,thepoliceofficersaskedhimtogowiththemtothe
BarangayHall(f)hevoluntarilywentwiththemandwhileinsidethepatrolcar,oneofthepolicemensaid,"Youare
lucky,wewereabletocaughtyouinyourhouse,ifinanotherplacewewillkillyou"(sic)(g)hewasbroughttothe
policestationandnotthebarangayhallashewasearliertoldwherehewasinvestigatedforrobberywithhomicide
(h)whenhetoldthepolicethathewasathomewhenthesubjectincidenttookplace,thepolicechallengedhimto
producewitnesses(i)whenhiswitnessesarrivedatthestation,oneofthepoliceofficerstoldthemtocomeback
thefollowingday(j)whilehewasatthepolicelineupholdinganameplate,apoliceofficertoldSumulongandAtie,
"Iturunyonayanatuuwinatayo"and(k)whenhiswitnessesarrivedthefollowingday,theyweretoldthathewill
besubjectedtoaninquest.8

Tocorroboratehistestimony,Larapresentedoneofhisneighbors,SimpliciaDelosReyes.ShetestifiedthatonMay
31,2001,whileshewasmanningherstore,shesawLaraworkingonasewertrenchfrom9:00inthemorningto
5:00intheafternoon.9Laraalsopresentedhissister,EdjosaManalo,whotestifiedthathewasworkingonasewer
linethewholedayofMay31,2001.10

On October 1, 2008, the RTC convicted Lara of robbery with homicide in a Decision,11 the dispositive portion of
whichstates:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thisCourtfindstheaccusedARTUROLARAYOrbistaGUILTY
beyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofRobberywithHomicide,definedandpenalizedunderArticle
294 (1) as amended by Republic Act 7659, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonmentofreclusionperpetua,withalltheaccessorypenaltiesprescribedbylaw.

Accused is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the sum of Php50,000.00 as civil
indemnityandPhp230,000.00representingthemoneycartedbythesaidaccused.

SOORDERED.12

TheRTCrejectedLarasdefenseofalibiasfollows:

The prosecutions witness Enrique Sumulong positively identified accused Arturo Lara as the person
whocartedawaythepayrollmoneyofSanSebastianAlliedServices,Inc.,onMay31,2001ataround
10:30 oclock in the morning along the corner of Mercedez and Market Ave., Pasig City and the one
whoshotJoselitoBautistawhichcausedhisinstantaneousdeathonthesameday.Asrepeatedlyheld
by the Supreme Court, "For alibi to prosper, an accused must show he was at some other place for
suchaperiodoftimethatitwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenatthecrimesceneatthetimeofthe
commission of the crime" (People versus Bano, 419 SCRA 697). Considering the proximity of the
distancebetweentheplaceoftheincidentandtheresidenceoftheaccusedwhereheallegedlystayed
thewholedayofMay31,2001,itisnotphysicallyimpossibleforhimtobeatthecrimescenewithin
thesamebarangay.The positive identification of the accused which were categorical and consistent
andwithoutanyshowingofillmotiveonthepartoftheeyewitnesses,shouldprevailoverthealibiand
denial of the accused whose testimony was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence
(PeopleversusAves420SCRA259).13(Emphasissupplied)

On appeal, Lara pointed out several errors that supposedly attended his conviction. First, that he was arrested
without a warrant under circumstances that do not justify a warrantless arrest rendered void all proceedings
includingthosethatledtohisconviction.Second,hewasnotassistedbycounselwhenthepoliceplacedhimina
lineuptobeidentifiedbythewitnessesfortheprosecutioninviolationofSection12,ArticleIIIoftheConstitution.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_199877_2012.html 2/9
8/15/2017 G.R. No. 199877
The police lineup is part of custodial investigation and his right to counsel had already attached. Third, the
prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the prosecution failed to present a
witnesswhoactuallysawhimcommittheallegedacts.Sumulongmerelypresumedthathewastheonewhoshot
Bautista and who took the bag of money from him. The physical description of Lara that Sumulong gave to the
police was different from the one he gave during the trial, indicating that he did not have a fair glimpse of the
perpetrator.Moreover,thisgivesrisetothepossibilitythatitwashisunidentifiedcompanionwhoshotBautistaand
tookpossessionofthemoney.Hence,itcannotbereasonablyclaimedthathisconvictionwasattendedwithmoral
certainty.Fourth,thetrialcourterredindiscountingthetestimonyofhiswitnesses.Withoutanyshowingthatthey
wereimpelledbyimpropermotivesintestifyinginhisfavor,theirtestimoniesshouldhavebeengiventhecredence
theydeserve.Whilehistwo(2)witnesseswerehissisterandneighbor,thisdoesnotbyitselfsuggesttheexistence
ofbiasorimpairtheircredibility.

TheCAaffirmedLarasconviction.ThatLarawassupposedlyarrestedwithoutawarrantmaynotserveasaground
to invalidate the proceedings leading to his conviction considering its belated invocation. Any objections to the
legalityofthewarrantlessarrestshouldhavebeenraisedinamotiontoquashdulyfiledbeforetheaccusedenters
hispleaotherwise,itisdeemedwaived.Further,thattheaccusedwasillegallyarrestedisnotagroundtosetaside
convictiondulyarrivedatandbasedonevidencethatsufficientlyestablishesculpability:

Appellantsavowalcouldhardlywash.

Itisashopworndoctrinethatanyobjectioninvolvingawarrantofarrestortheacquisitionofjurisdiction
over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is
deemed waived. In voluntarily submitting himself to the court by entering a plea, instead of filing a
motiontoquashtheinformationforlackofjurisdictionoverhisperson,accusedappellantisdeemedto
have waived his right to assail the legality of his arrest. Applying the foregoing jurisprudential
touchstone,appellantisestoppedfromquestioningthevalidityofhisarrestsinceheneverraisedthis
issuebeforearraignmentormovedtoquashtheInformation.

Whatismore,theillegalarrestofanaccusedisnotsufficientcauseforsettingasideavalidjudgment
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error. The warrantless arrest, even if illegal,
cannotrendervoidallotherproceedingsincludingthoseleadingtotheconvictionoftheappellantsand
his coaccused, nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on
recordpointtotheirculpability.14(Citationsomitted)

AstowhethertheidentificationofLaraduringthepolicelineupisinadmissibleashisrighttocounselwasviolated,
theCAruledthattherewasnolegalcompulsiontoaffordhimacounselduringapolicelineupsincethelatterisnot
partofcustodialinvestigation.

Appellantsassertionthathewasundercustodialinvestigationatthetimehewasidentifiedinapolice
lineupandthereforehadtherighttocounseldoesnotholdwater.Ingrained in our jurisdictionisthe
rulethatanaccusedisnotentitledtotheassistanceofcounselinapolicelineupconsideringthatsuch
isusuallynotapartofcustodialinvestigation.Anexceptiontothisruleiswhentheaccusedhadbeen
the focus of police attention at the start of the investigation. In the case at bench, appellant was
identified in a police lineup by prosecution witnesses from a group of persons gathered for the
purpose. However, there was no proof that appellant was interrogated at all or that a statement or
confessionwasextractedfromhim.Apriori,Werefusetohearkentoappellantshollowcrythathewas
deprived of his constitutional right to counsel given the hard fact that during the police lineup, the
accusatoryprocesshadnotyetcommenced.

Assuming ex hypothesi that appellant was subjected to interrogation sans counsel during the police
lineup,itdoesnotinanywayaffecthisculpability.Anyallegationofviolationofrightsduringcustodial
investigation is relevant and material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or confession
extractedfromtheaccusedbecomesthebasisoftheirconviction.Here,appellantwasconvictedbased
on the testimony of a prosecution witness and not on his alleged uncounseled confession or
admission.15(Citationsomitted)

TheCAaddressedLarasclaimthattheprosecutionsfailuretopresentawitnesswhoactuallysawhimcommitthe
crimechargedasfollows:

Third.Appellant takes umbrage at the alleged failure of the prosecution to present an eyewitness to
provethatheshotthevictimandtookthemoney.

Suchpostureisunpersuasive.

Contrarytoappellantsassertion,prosecutionwitnessSumulongactuallysawhimshootBautista,the
victim.Sumulongvividlyrecounted,viz:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_199877_2012.html 3/9
8/15/2017 G.R. No. 199877
"QWhenyousaidthat"tinutukanka",asidefromthisactwasthereanyotherwordsspokenby
thisperson?

ATherewas,sir.

QWhatdidhesay?

A"Nasaanangbagilabasmoyungpera",sir.

QWherewereyoulookingwhenthispersonapproachedyou?

AIwaslookingathisface,sir.

QAnduponhearingthosewords,whatdidyoudo?

AIputoutthemoney,sir,becauseIgotafraidatthattime.

QDidyouhandovertheblackbagcontainingthemoneytohim?

A No, sir, because one of my companion(s) shouted not to give the money or the bag so I
immediatelythrewawaythebagatthebackseat,sir.

QAndhowlongapproximatelywasthatpersonstandingbyyourcarwindow?

AFive(5)toten(10)minutes,sir.

QAndafteryouhavethrowntheblackbagcontainingmoneytothebackofthevehicle,whatdid
thatpersondo?

A I saw Joey alight(ed) from the vehicle carrying the bag and ran away, sir, and I also saw
somebodyshootagun?

QWhowasfiringthegun?

ATheonewhoheldupus,sir.

QByhow,doyouknowhisname?

ANo,sir.

QButifyoucanseehimagain,(were)youbeabletorecognizehim?

AYes,sir.

QIfheisinthecourtroom,willyoubeabletorecognizehim?

AYes,sir.

QPleaselookaroundandpleasetellthisHonorableCourtwhetherindeedthepersonyousaw
holdingyouupatthattimeisincourt?

AYes,sir.

QWillyoupleasestandupandtaphisshouldertoidentifyhim?

Interpreter:

The witness tap the shoulder of a person sitting on the first bench of the courtroom wearing
yellowtshirtandblackpantswhowhenaskidentifyhimselfasArturoLara(sic).

QAndwhenasyousaidJoeygotthebag.Alightedfromthevehicleandranawaywithit,what
didtheaccuseddo?(sic)

AHeshotJoeywhilerunningaroundourvehicle,sir.

QAroundhowmanyshotsaccordingtoyourrecollectionwerefired?

ATherewereseveralshots,moreorlessnine(9)shots,sir.

xxxxxx"
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_199877_2012.html 4/9
8/15/2017 G.R. No. 199877
"QSo,youdidnotpersonallynoticewhathadtranspiredorhappenedafteryousteppeddown
fromtheNissanpickup,thatiscorrect?

ATherewas,sir,mycompanionJoselitoBautistawasshot.

QWhenyouheardthegunfire,youwerealreadyproceedingtowardsthatstoretocallyouroffice
byphone,thatiscorrect?

ANotyet,sir,wewerestillinsidethevehicle.

QAndwasJoselitoBautistaattherearoftheNissanSentrawhenyouheardthisgunfire?

AYes,sir.

QAndsohewasattheback,sotheshooterwasalsoatthebackofthevehicle,thatiscorrect?

AYes,sir,hewenttowardstherearportionofthevehicle,hefollowedJoselitoBautistaandshot
him.

QSo,tobeclear,whenJoselitoBautistarantotherear,thisallegedholdup(p)erfollowedhim?

AYes,sir.

QAndthatwasthetime(,)youheardthisgunfire?AYes,sir.

QSo,youdidnotpersonallyseewhofiredthatfirearm?

ABecauseatthattimehewastheoneholdingthegun,sir.

QSo, you are presuming that he was the one who fired the gun because he was holding the
gun,amIcorrect?

AYes,sir."

xxxx

UnderSection4,Rule133,oftheRulesofCourt,circumstantialevidenceissufficientforconvictionif
thefollowingrequisitesconcur:

(a)Thereismorethanonecircumstance

(b)Thefactsfromwhichtheinferencesarederivedareprovenand

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonabledoubt.

Here,thefollowingcircumstantialevidencearetellinglysufficienttoprovethattheguiltofappellantis
beyondreasonabledoubt,viz:

1.While the vehicle was at the intersection of Mercedes and Market Avenues, Pasig City, appellant
suddenly emerged and pointed a gun at prosecution witness Sumulong, demanding from him to
producethebagcontainingthemoney.

2.ProsecutionwitnessSumulongthrewthebagtothevictimwhowasthenseatedatthebackseatof
thevehicle.

3.Thevictimalightedfromvehiclecarryingthebag.

4.Appellantchasedandfiredseveralshotsatthevictim.

5.Thevictimsustainedseveralgunshotwounds.

6. The police officers recovered from the scene of the crime six deformed empty shells.16 (Citations
omittedandemphasissupplied)

Finally,theCAfoundthatLarasalibifailedtoconvince.Specifically:

Deeply embedded in our jurisprudence is the rule that positive identification of the accused, where
categorical and consistent, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_199877_2012.html 5/9
8/15/2017 G.R. No. 199877
shouldprevailoverthealibianddenialofappellants,whosetestimoniesarenotsubstantiatedbyclear
andconvincingevidence.

Allthemore,toestablishalibitheaccusedmustprove(a)thathewaspresentatanotherplaceatthe
timeoftheperpetrationofthecrime,and(b)thatitwasphysicallyimpossibleforhimtobeatthescene
ofthecrime.Physicalimpossibility"referstothedistancebetweentheplacewheretheaccusedwas
when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access
betweenthetwoplaces.Appellantmiserablyfailedtoprovethephysicalimpossibilityofhispresenceat
thelocuscriminisatthetimeoftheperpetrationofthefeloniousact.Hehimselfadmittedthathishouse
wasjustastonesthrow(aboutthreeminutesaway)fromthecrimescene.17(Citationsomitted)

In a Resolution18 dated February 1, 2012, this Court accepted the appeal as the penalty imposed was reclusion
perpetuaandthepartieswereaffordedanopportunitytofiletheirsupplementalbriefs.Bothpartieswaivedtheirright
todoso,statingthattheywouldadopttheallegationsintheirrespectivebriefsthattheyfiledwiththeCA.

Issues

ThepresentreviewofLarasconvictionforrobberywithhomicidegivesrisetothefollowingissues:

a. whether the identification made by Sumulong, Atie and Manacob in the police lineup is inadmissible
becauseLarastoodthereinwithouttheassistanceofcounsel

b. whether Laras supposedly illegal arrest may be raised for the first time on appeal for the purpose of
nullifyinghisconviction

c.whetherthereissufficientevidencetoconvictLaraand

d.whetherLarasalibicanbegivencredencesoastoexoneratehimfromthecrimecharged.

OurRuling

ThisCourtresolvestodenytheappeal.

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be acquired through compulsory process such as a warrant of
arrestorthroughhisvoluntaryappearance,suchaswhenhesurrenderstothepoliceortothecourt.19Anyobjection
tothearrestoracquisitionofjurisdictionoverthepersonoftheaccusedmustbemadebeforeheentershisplea,
otherwisetheobjectionisdeemedwaived.Anaccusedsubmitstothejurisdictionofthetrialcourtuponenteringa
pleaandparticipatingactivelyinthetrialandthisprecludeshiminvokinganyirregularitiesthatmayhaveattended
hisarrest.20

Furthermore,theillegalarrestofanaccusedisnotasufficientgroundtoreverseandsetasideaconvictionthatwas
arriveduponacomplaintdulyfiledandatrialconductedwithouterror.21AsSection9,Rule117oftheRevisedRules
ofCriminalProcedureprovides:

Sec. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. The failure of the accused to
assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either
becausehedidnotfileamotiontoquashorfailedtoallegethesameinsaidmotion,shallbedeemeda
waiverofanyobjectionsexceptthosebasedonthegroundsprovidedforinparagraphs(a),(b),(g)and
(i)ofSection3ofthisRule.

II

Contrary to Laras claim, that he was not provided with counsel when he was placed in a police lineup did not
invalidate the proceedings leading to his conviction. That he stood at the police lineup without the assistance of
counseldidnotrenderSumulongsidentificationofLarainadmissible.Therighttocounselisdeemedtohavearisen
attheprecisemomentcustodialinvestigationbeginsandbeingmadetostandinapolicelineupisnotthestarting
pointorapartofcustodialinvestigation.AsthisCourtpreviouslyruledinPeoplev.Amestuzo:22

Thecontentionisnotmeritorious.TheguaranteesofSec.12(1),Art.IIIofthe1987Constitution,orthe
socalled Miranda rights, may be invoked only by a person while he is under custodial investigation.
Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who
startstheinterrogationandpropoundsquestionstothepersontoelicitincriminatingstatements.Police
lineup is not part of the custodial investigation hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by the
Constitutioncannotyetbeinvokedatthisstage.This was settled in the case of People vs. Lamsing
andinthemorerecentcaseofPeoplevs.Salvatierra.Therighttobeassistedbycounselattachesonly
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_199877_2012.html 6/9
8/15/2017 G.R. No. 199877
during custodial investigation and cannot be claimed by the accused during identification in a police
lineupbecauseitisnotpartofthecustodialinvestigationprocess.Thisisbecauseduringapoliceline
up,theprocesshasnotyetshiftedfromtheinvestigatorytotheaccusatoryanditisusuallythewitness
or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the course of the lineup.23
(Citationsomitted)

III

ItisapparentfromtheassaileddecisionoftheCAthatthefindingofguiltagainstLaraisbasedoncircumstantial
evidence. The CA allegedly erred in this wise considering that only direct and not circumstantial evidence can
overcomethepresumptionofinnocence.

However,wellsettledistherulethatdirectevidenceofthecommissionofthecrimeisnottheonlymatrixwherefrom
atrialcourtmaydrawitsconclusionandfindingofguilt.Evenintheabsenceofdirectevidence,convictioncanbe
hadiftheestablishedcircumstancesconstituteanunbrokenchain,consistentwitheachotherandtothehypothesis
thattheaccusedisguilty,totheexclusionofallotherhypothesisthatheisnot.24

UnderSection4,Rule133oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedure,circumstantialevidencesufficedtoconvict
upontheconcurrenceofthefollowingrequisites:(a)thereismorethanonecircumstance(b)thefactsfromwhich
the inferences are derived are proven and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
convictionbeyondreasonabledoubt.

Itisnotonlybydirectevidencethatanaccusedmaybeconvictedofthecrimeforwhichheischarged.Resortto
circumstantialevidenceisessentialsincetoinsistondirecttestimonywould,inmanycases,resultinsettingfelons
freeanddenyingproperprotectiontothecommunity.25

As the CA correctly ruled, the following circumstances established by the evidence for the prosecution strongly
indicateLarasguilt:(a)whilethevehicleSumulong,Atie,ManacobandBautistawereridingwasattheintersection
of Mercedes and Market Avenues, he appeared at the front passenger side thereof armed with a gun (b) while
pointingthegunatSumulongwhowasatthefrontpassengerseat,LarademandedthatSumulonggivehimthebag
containing the money (c) instead of giving the bag to Lara, Sumulong gave it to Bautista who was seated at the
backofthepickup(d)whenBautistagotholdofthebag,healightedandrantowardsthebackofthepickup(e)
Lara ran after Bautista and while doing so, fired his gun at Bautistas direction (f) Bautista sustained several
gunshotwoundsand(g)Bautistasbloodwasonthecrimesceneandemptyshellswererecoveredtherefrom.

Indeed, in cases of robbery with homicide, the taking of personal property with intent to gain must itself be
establishedbeyondreasonabledoubt.Conclusiveevidenceprovingthephysicalactofasportationbytheaccused
mustbepresentedbytheprosecution.Itmustbeshownthattheoriginalcriminaldesignoftheculpritwasrobbery
andthehomicidewasperpetratedwithaviewtotheconsummationoftherobberybyreasonorontheoccasionof
therobbery.26Themerepresenceoftheaccusedatthecrimesceneisnotenoughtoimplicatehim.Itisessentialto
provetheintenttorobandtheuseofviolencewasnecessarytorealizesuchintent.

Inthiscase,LarasintenttogainisprovenbySumulongspositivenarrationthatitwasLarawhopointedthegunat
himanddemandedthatthebagcontainingthemoneybeturnedovertohim.ThatLararesortedtoviolenceinorder
to actualize his intent to gain is proven by Sumulongs testimony that he saw Lara fire the gun at the direction of
Bautista,whowasrunningawayfromthepickupinordertopreventLarafromtakingpossessionofthemoney.

Notably, the incident took place in broad daylight and in the middle of a street. Thus, where considerations of
visibilityarefavorableandthewitnessdoesnotappeartobebiasedagainsttheaccused,hisorherassertionsasto
theidentityofthemalefactorshouldbenormallyaccepted.27

Lara did not allege, much less, convincingly demonstrate that Sumulong was impelled by improper or malicious
motivestoimputeuponhim,howeverperjurious,suchaseriouscharge.Thus,histestimony,whichthetrialcourt
foundtobeforthrightandcredible,isworthyoffullfaithandcreditandshouldnotbedisturbed.Ifanaccusedhad
nothing to do with the crime, it is against the natural order of events and of human nature and against the
presumptionofgoodfaiththataprosecutionwitnesswouldfalselytestifyagainsttheformer.28

IV

InviewofSumulongspositiveidentificationofLara,theCAwascorrectindenyingLarasalibioutright.It is well
settledthatpositiveidentificationprevailsoveralibi,whichisinherentlyaweakdefense.Suchistherule,forasa
defense,alibiiseasytoconcoct,anddifficulttodisapprove.29

Moreover,inorderforthedefenseofalibitoprosper,itisnotenoughtoprovethattheaccusedwassomewhereelse
when the offense was committed, but it must likewise be demonstrated that he was so far away that it was not
possibleforhimtohavebeenphysicallypresentattheplaceofthecrimeoritsimmediatevicinityatthetimeofits
commission.Duetoitsdoubtfulnature,alibimustbesupportedbyclearandconvincingproof.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_199877_2012.html 7/9
8/15/2017 G.R. No. 199877
Inthiscase,theproximityofLarashouseatthesceneofthecrimewhollynegateshisalibi.AssumingastrueLaras
claimandthatofhiswitnessesthathewasdiggingasewertrenchonthedayoftheincident,itispossiblethathis
witnessesmaynothavenoticedhimleavingandreturninggiventhatthedistancebetweenhishouseandtheplace
wherethesubjectincidenttookplacecanbenegotiated,evenbywalking,injustamatterofminutes.Simplyput,
Laraandhiswitnessesfailedtoprovethatitiswellnighimpossibleforhimtobeatthesceneofthecrime.

Infine,theassaileddecisionoftheCAisaffirmedinallrespects.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theDecisiondatedJuly28,2011oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CRHC
No.03685isherebyAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
SeniorAssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision

ARTUROD.BRION MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
SeniorAssociateJustice
(PerSection12,R.A.296
TheJudiciaryActof1948,asamended)

Footnotes
*
AdditionalmemberperSpecialOrderNo.1274datedJuly30,2012vice Associate Justice Maria Lourdes
P.A.Sereno.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and
AssociateJusticeJaneAuroraC.Lantion,concurringrolla,pp.213.
2
UnderthesalaofJudgeAmeliaC.ManalastasCArolla,pp.4147.
3
Id.at2324.
4
Id.at23.
5
Id.at4243.
6
Id.at4344.
7
Id.at44.
8
Id.at4445.
9
Id.at46.
10
Id.
11
Id.at4147.
12
Id.at47.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_199877_2012.html 8/9
8/15/2017 G.R. No. 199877
13
Id.at46.
14
Rollo,p.5.
15
Id.at56.
16
Id.at711.
17
Id.at1112.
18
Id.at1920.
19
Mirandav.Tuliao,520Phil.907,917(2006).
20
SeePeoplev.Ayangao,471Phil.379,387388(2004).
21
SeeRebellionv.People,G.R.No.175700,July5,2010,623SCRA343,348.
22
413Phil.500(2001).
23
Id.at508509.
24
Peoplev.Pascual,Jr.,432Phil.224,231(2002).
25
Peoplev.delaCruz,397Phil.401,420(2000),citingPeoplev.Geron,346Phil.14,24(1997).
26
Peoplev.Geron,346Phil.14,26(1997).
27
Peoplev.Santito,Jr.,278Phil.100,113(1991).
28
Peoplev.Jumamoy,G.R.No.101584,April7,1993,221SCRA333,344.
29
Peoplev.Aminola,G.R.No.178062,September8,2010,630SCRA384,394395.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

UncheckedArticle

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_199877_2012.html 9/9