G.R. No. 208527 July 20, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARDO BACERO y CASABON, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On March 24, 2003, Juliet Dumdum-Bunot and her boyfriend, Virgilio “Jun” San Juan, Jr., were attacked by six men during a picnic in Taytay, Rizal. Accused-appellant Ardo Bacero was identified as one of the assailants who stabbed Jun and forcibly took his cellphone. Juliet was restrained and her face covered, but she managed to see through the thin towel and later identified Bacero. Jun was found dead. Initially distraught, Juliet recalled two days later that she regularly saw Bacero, a tricycle driver, near her house. She subsequently pointed him out to police, leading to his arrest and an alleged extrajudicial confession.
Bacero raised the defenses of alibi and denial, claiming he was at home gathering wood during the incident. He also alleged that his confession was coerced through police torture. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Bacero appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning his identification and the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for Robbery with Homicide based on the eyewitness identification and the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitness Juliet Dumdum-Bunot to be credible, categorical, and consistent. Her familiarity with Bacero’s face from seeing him frequently in her neighborhood provided a reliable basis for her identification, which was made without hesitation during a police line-up. The Court emphasized that positive identification prevails over the defenses of alibi and denial, which are inherently weak. Bacero failed to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene, as his claimed location was not far from the subdivision where the crime occurred.
Regarding the elements of Robbery with Homicide, the Court ruled they were sufficiently established. The taking of Jun’s cellphone and cash constituted robbery. The killing of Jun was proven by autopsy reports and occurred by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, satisfying the requisites for the special complex crime. The Court also upheld the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages to the victim’s heirs, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. The penalty of reclusion perpetua without parole was correctly imposed, as the crime was committed before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibited the death penalty. All elements of the crime were proven beyond reasonable doubt.