GR L 56589; (January, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-56589. January 12, 1987.
JAIME MANLAPAZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jaime Manlapaz, a police officer, was charged with robbery for allegedly extorting four packs of cigarettes from Wilfredo Oliveros. After pleading not guilty, the prosecution moved to dismiss based on Oliveros’s affidavit of desistance, stating insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court denied the motion, proceeded with trial, and convicted Manlapaz of the lesser crime of light coercion.
On appeal, a Special Division of the Court of Appeals, by a 3-2 vote, convicted Manlapaz of robbery as charged, modifying the penalty. The majority found Oliveros’s testimony credible despite the affidavit of desistance, which they viewed as having been procured by Manlapaz. The dissenting justices voted for acquittal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in its factual findings, warranting a review by the Supreme Court despite the general rule that factual determinations of the CA are final.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted Manlapaz. While the Court generally does not review factual findings of the CA, recognized exceptions exist, such as when the conclusions are manifestly mistaken or absurd. The Court found this case fell within that exception.
The CA majority erroneously treated the affidavit of desistance as a decisive factor against Manlapaz, implying it was involuntarily obtained. The record, however, showed it was a voluntary act by Oliveros, even submitted by the fiscal himself. The conviction rested solely on Oliveros’s testimony, which, upon analysis, was not credible. His testimony contained contradictions; his memory was selectively strong initially but faltered during trial. His apparent animus against Manlapaz was noted, and he avoided mentioning other policemen he initially implicated.
In contrast, the defense evidence was credible and corroborated. Manlapaz testified the cigarettes were freely given by a certain Efren Gatchalian, which was corroborated by another witness and partly confirmed by Oliveros’s own admission that Gatchalian was present. The prosecution failed to present Gatchalian to rebut this claim. The state of the evidence created reasonable doubt, aligning with the initial prosecutorial assessment for dismissal. Thus, the CA’s factual findings were manifestly mistaken, compelling acquittal.