GR 24424; (March, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24424 March 30, 1970
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANGELES CRUZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Ten persons were charged with robbery with homicide committed on November 3, 1962, in Goso-on, Carmen, Agusan. Of the four who faced trial, Inecito Hevero and Nonilon Butao were acquitted. Arturo Bonifacio and Angeles Cruz were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Bonifacio later withdrew his appeal. Only the appeal of Angeles Cruz is reviewed. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the identification made by sisters Zenaida and Emma Cabillo, aged 15 and 12 at the time of their testimony. They claimed that during the robbery, masked men held them as shields. They later identified Bonifacio and Cruz when their masks allegedly fell off in the store below the house, which was lit by electric lights. The defense challenged the identification, citing poor lighting conditions, inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies regarding the lighting, and the suggestive manner in which Cruz was identified at the police station. The police chief testified that during the identification, Emma initially said Cruz was not the perpetrator, but after prompting by a police captain, Zenaida said, “Maybe he is the one.”
ISSUE
Was the identification of Angeles Cruz by the prosecution witnesses so positive and certain as to meet the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt of his criminal participation?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and acquitted Angeles Cruz. The Court found the identification of Cruz highly suspect and infirm. The lighting conditions during the robbery were uncertain and inconsistent across testimonies. The witnesses’ claim that masks fell off was not mentioned in their initial police statements and was not corroborated. The identification procedure at the police station was “pointedly suggestive,” involving whispered conversations and prompting by police officers, which subverted the witnesses’ reliability. The prosecution failed to establish Cruz’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. While alibi is a weak defense, it gains strength when, as here, no positive and proper identification of the accused is made. The burden of proof remains with the prosecution, and its failure to meet this burden necessitates acquittal.