G.R. No. 218570 November 22, 2017
BEN MANANGAN, Petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS

Petitioner Ben Manangan was charged with Robbery by a Band under Article 295 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on February 5, 2001, in Tumauini, Isabela, Manangan, together with five other unidentified armed men wearing masks, entered the house of Ocampo Denna. After ordering the occupants to cook and eat with them, the group announced a hold-up and, at gunpoint, demanded money. Threatened with death, Jolita Denna, Ocampo’s wife, surrendered ₱50,000.00 to the robbers. Two eyewitnesses, Jolita Denna and Fortunata Denna, positively identified Manangan. Jolita recognized him when he called for her husband and she opened the door. Fortunata, who was inside the house, identified Manangan as the only unmasked assailant, seeing his face clearly by the light of a gas lamp and while he was roaming during the meal.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Manangan claimed he was at his house having a drinking session with his brother-in-law from 7:30 PM to 9:00 PM on the night of the incident and was arrested the following morning. He asserted he was falsely implicated due to a prior land dispute with the Dennas. The Regional Trial Court convicted Manangan, a ruling affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals. The CA upheld the conviction but reduced the penalty, deleting the award of exemplary damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Ben Manangan’s conviction for the crime of Robbery by a Band.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings and assessment of witness credibility by the lower courts. The positive identification by two eyewitnesses, who knew Manangan prior to the incident, prevailed over his bare denial and unsubstantiated alibi. The defense of alibi is inherently weak and cannot stand against positive identification, especially where the accused was seen at the crime scene and there was no physical impossibility for him to be there. The Court also found the claim of improper motive for the accusation unpersuasive.
On the legal qualification of the crime, the Court modified the penalty. For Robbery by a Band under Article 295 in relation to Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code, the presence of at least four armed malefactors acting together constitutes a band. The Information alleged six armed robbers, including Manangan. However, the prosecution only proved the identity of Manangan; the other five remained unidentified. The Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of band cannot be appreciated when some accused are unidentified, as it would violate their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Consequently, the crime is simple robbery under Article 299(1) of the RPC, as the taking was accomplished with the use of force upon things (by entering the house) and violence against persons (through intimidation with firearms). The indeterminate penalty imposed by the CA was within the range for simple robbery.