G.R. No. 257702 , February 07, 2024
MARK ANTHONY PAGTAKHAN Y FLORES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Mark Anthony Pagtakhan y Flores was charged with Robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on August 27, 2017, in Pasay City, he, armed with a gun and by means of force, violence, and intimidation, took personal belongings and cash totaling Php 7,480.00 from complainant Kent Bryan V. Flores. The charge was based on the complainant’s Sinumpaang Salaysay, wherein he stated he was robbed while walking along Villaruel Street at around 4:21 AM. The complainant did not immediately report the incident to the police. He later went to the police station after learning from people in the area that Pagtakhan was the suspect and upon hearing that Pagtakhan was detained there for another case. At the station, he positively identified Pagtakhan as the perpetrator. During trial, the prosecution presented only the private complainant as a witness. On cross-examination, he admitted he did not report the incident immediately, had no personal knowledge of the perpetrator’s identity initially, relied on information from people in the area, and that no one else witnessed the incident. The defense presented petitioner and his common-law partner, Rosalyn Mendoza. Petitioner denied the accusation, claiming he was at home asleep during the incident and had never seen the complainant before being pointed at in the police station on September 11, 2017, for a drug offense. His partner corroborated his alibi. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner, giving credence to the complainant’s positive identification and rejecting the defense of alibi and denial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for Robbery based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and ACQUITTED petitioner Mark Anthony Pagtakhan y Flores. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The core of the prosecution’s case was the complainant’s identification of the petitioner. However, this identification was unreliable. The complainant admitted he did not see the perpetrator’s face during the incident, initially had no knowledge of the perpetrator’s identity, and only identified petitioner after being told by others that he was the suspect and upon seeing him in police custody. This constituted impermissible suggestion, making the identification process defective and the testimony insufficient to meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of alibi, while generally weak, was credible under the circumstances as it was corroborated and the prosecution’s evidence was tenuous. The constitutional presumption of innocence prevails when the evidence does not establish guilt with moral certainty. Consequently, petitioner was acquitted.