G.R. No. 217722 September 26, 2018
JOMAR ABLAZA y CAPARAS, Petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS

Petitioner Jomar Ablaza and his co-accused, Jay Lauzon, were charged with Robbery with Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons. The prosecution alleged that on July 29, 2010, while the victim, Rosario Snyder, was walking and using her cellphone, a motorcycle ridden by two men stopped beside her. The backrider forcibly grabbed three necklaces from her neck, collectively valued at ₱70,100. Snyder identified Ablaza as the driver from police photographs, noting she had a clear view of his face as he was not wearing a helmet and the assailants looked back at her before speeding away. Snyder reported the incident, and police accompanied her to Ablaza’s house where Lauzon was found hiding. The necklaces were not recovered.
Ablaza presented an alibi, testifying he and Lauzon were asleep at his house at the time due to a prior drinking session. He claimed that when a policeman and a woman (presumably Snyder) arrived at his house, the woman initially stated he was not the perpetrator, describing the suspect as “tisoy” with a tattoo. He was nonetheless arrested two months later. The Regional Trial Court found both accused guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for Robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of robbery were present: (1) there was a taking of personal property (the necklaces); (2) the property belonged to another (Snyder); (3) the taking was with intent to gain (animus lucrandi); and (4) the taking was effected with violence against or intimidation of persons. The act of forcibly grabbing necklaces from a person’s neck constitutes violence sufficient for robbery, as distinguished from the simpler force in theft. The Court found the victim’s positive identification of Ablaza, based on her clear and candid testimony, to be credible and sufficient for conviction, outweighing the weak denial and alibi offered by the defense. The alleged inconsistency regarding the initial description (“tisoy”) did not impair Snyder’s core identification, which was reinforced by her opportunity to view the assailants’ faces during the incident and her subsequent recognition from police photographs. The factual findings of the lower courts, which found Snyder’s testimony credible, are generally binding on review. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was affirmed, with the modification that the monetary award shall earn legal interest at 6% per annum from finality of judgment until full payment.