GR 175842; (March, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175842 . March 18, 2015.
NILO MACAYAN, JR. y MALANA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Nilo Macayan, Jr. was charged with robbery for allegedly, on or about February 16, 2001, threatening complainant Annie Uy Jao that he would destroy her and her family and have them kidnapped unless she gave him P200,000.00, thereby compelling her to give him P4,000.00. The prosecution’s version was that Macayan, a former employee of Jao, threatened her after a postponed conference in his illegal dismissal case against her. Jao sought NBI assistance, leading to an entrapment operation where she handed marked money to Macayan at a McDonald’s, after which he was arrested. The defense version was that the meeting was to settle the illegal dismissal case, and the money was a settlement payment, not taken through intimidation. The Regional Trial Court convicted Macayan of robbery. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Office of the Solicitor General, at the appellate stage, recommended acquittal, asserting guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of robbery, particularly the element of intimidation or violence against the person.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the assailed Court of Appeals Decision, and ACQUITTED petitioner Nilo Macayan, Jr. The prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the evidence for the alleged intimidation was weak and insufficient. The sole testimony of the private complainant regarding the threats was uncorroborated and dubious, especially since her secretary, who was allegedly present during one threat, was not presented as a witness. The claim that a threatening phone call came from Macayan was based solely on the caller addressing her as “Madam,” which was insufficient to establish identity. The entrapment operation was irregular, as the marked money was not recovered from Macayan’s possession but was taken by the NBI operatives during the arrest. The defense of settlement of a labor case was plausible, given that Macayan had previously won his illegal dismissal case and was awarded monetary benefits. The presumption of innocence prevails, and the prosecution’s evidence did not overcome this presumption.