People v.

Gonzales 382 SCRA 694 (2002) FACTS Nicanor Suralta was having drinks with his visitors in their house when two armed men, one carrying a gun and the other a knife, suddenly entered the house through the kitchen door. The one carrying a gun had a bonnet over his face, with only his eyes exposed, while the other one carrying a knife had the lower half of his face covered with a handkerchief. The knife-wielder held Chona, the third child of the Suralta spouses, and announced a holdup. All persons in the house were ordered to go inside the bedroom, about 2 meters away from the sala. There, the man with a gun demanded a gun and money from Nicanor. Nicanor answered that he had no gun, but asked his wife, Carolita, to give money to the holduppers. Carolita gave P2,100.00, which was intended to be deposited in the bank, to the knife-wielder, who placed it in his pocket. Then the knife-wielder ransacked the cabinet and took the remaining amount of P325.00,which was intended for the school expenses of the Suralta children. In addition, he took the family's Sanyo cassette recorder and some clothes. The holduppers also divested one of the guests of his Seiko diver's wristwatch and then left. As the holduppers were leaving, two gunshots rang out. Nicanor was heard moaning. Nicanor eventually died. On July 12, 1992, there was another holdup inside the ACF passenger bus compound in the neighboring municipality of Magdug, Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental. The police team sent to investigate the incident was able to pick up suspects, one of whom was accused-appellant Joel Gonzales. He was wearing a wristwatch and had a handgun. Other items, consisting of watches, a cassette recorder, a chain saw, and spare parts, were recovered from his house, some of which were claimed by passengers of the ACF bus line. Police Inspector Arnold Malintad of Governor Generoso, head of the team investigating the robbery of the ACF bus compound, informed Capt. Adane Sakkam, Police Chief of San Isidro, about the apprehension of accused-appellant Gonzales and the recovery of the items from him. Accordingly, on July 14, 1992, Capt. Sakkam, Carolita Suralta, and Arsenio Abonales proceeded to the Governor Generoso Police Station. Carolita and Arsenio identified accused-appellants Joel Gonzales and Romeo Bernaldez as the holduppers. Joel Gonzales was identified as the man armed with a gun who wore a bonnet to cover his face, while Romeo Bernaldez was identified as the knife-wielder who wore a handkerchief to cover the lower portion of his face. Carolita volunteered that accused-appellant Bernaldez is in fact her nephew. Carolita and Arsenio said that they were able to recognize the suspects despite their disguises because they were only one to two meters away from each other during the holdup, and the rooms of the house were well-lighted. In addition, Carolita was able to identify the Sanyo cassette recorder as the one taken from their house because of the broken antennae and the name Nick Suralta written inside the battery compartment. On the other hand, Arsenio likewise identified the Seiko divers watch as his. Accused-appellants put up the defense of denial and alibi. Accused-appellant Joel Gonzales testified that he was in Tandang Sora, Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental the whole day of July 5, 1992 working in his mother-in-laws farm, piling coconut palm leaves together with his brother-in-law. In the evening, he had supper in his house and slept there together with his family. For his part, accused-appellant Romeo Bernaldez claimed that at around 9:30 oclock in the evening of July 5, 1992, he was sleeping in his house in Tibanban, Governor Generoso together with his father, mother, and two sisters. After trial, judgment was rendered by the trial court finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide.

ISSUE: WON the court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused of the crime charged based on circumstantial evidence

HELD: NO. We find no reason for setting aside the lower courts conclusion on the accuracy and correctness of the witnesses identification of the accused-appellants as the persons who robbed the Suralta spouses and the couples guest Arsenio Abonales and killed Nicanor Suralta. It is the most natural reaction of victims of criminal violence to strive to ascertain the appearance of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime was committed. Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression on the victims minds which cannot be easily erased from their memory. There is no evidence to show that the eyewitnesses were so paralyzed with fear that they mistook accused-appellants for the men who robbed and killed the victims. On the contrary, fear for ones life may even cause the witness to be mor e observant of his surroundings. Experience shows that precisely because of the unusual acts of bestiality committed before their eyes, eyewitnesses, especially the victims to a crime, attain a high degree of reliability in identifying criminals. The desire to see that justice is done will not be served should the witness abandon his conscience and prudence and blame one who is innocent of the crime. Although the names of accused-appellants were supplied by the police, the witnesses nevertheless recognized accused-appellants when they visited them in the Governor Generoso jail. What is important is not the ability of an eyewitness to give the true and correct names of the accused, but rather his ability to identify the persons actually seen committing the offense. Moreover, in the absence of proof that a witness is moved by improper motive, it is presumed that he was not so moved and, therefore, his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. That presumption has not been overcome in this case. Consequently, the identification of accused-appellants as the killers of Nicanor Suralta stands. Nor is motive for the killing important when there is no doubt as to the identity of the perpetrators of the crime. But here the motive is plain: the victim was killed to rob him of his possessions. Accused-appellant Joel Gonzales denies that the stolen goods had been taken from him. Inspector Malintad testified that he recovered watches, a cassette recorder, a chainsaw, and spare parts from accusedappellant Joel Gonzales when he arrested the latter in his house. There is no reason to doubt Inspector Malintads claim that the stolen items were indeed recovered from accused-appellant Gonzales. These items were definitively identified by the owners as those taken from them. Between the testimonies of the police officers, who enjoy the presumption of regularity in their duties, and the bare denials of accused-appellants, we are more inclined to believe the police officers. This is true especially considering that the police officers have not been shown to have any motive to testify falsely against accused-appellants. Rule 131, 3(j) of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him. Since the subject items were found in the possession of accused-appellant Joel Gonzales, he is then presumed to be the taker of the stolen items. Accused-appellant Gonzales was unable to satisfactorily explain his possession of the stolen items.

PEOPLE vs. MENDOZA 292 SCRA 168 FACTS In the evening of August 22, 1991, private complainant's husband went to San Jose del Monte, Bulacan to haul chicken. She retired to their bedroom. She as joined by her three (3)children, while their maid went down to the basement to sleep. The bedroom is on the elevated portion of their bungalow-type house Tumana, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, while another room is located in the basement. The toilet and bath in the bedroom had a grill-less window with glass jalousies that open to the roof of the terrace. The lights in the bedroom and the bathroom were on at the time that she and her children fell asleep that evening. Private complainant woke up when she felt her thighs being rubbed. Thereupon, she saw two (2) men in black jackets with their faces covered with handkerchiefs. She described one of them as medium built and the other as a small man. The medium-built man poked a 6-inch knife at her neck and ordered her to open the vault inside the room.The two men took the cash in the vault amounting to P2,000.00 and jewelry worth P12,000.00. Upon orders of the medium-built man, the small man untied the curtain band and handed the same to him. While undoing the curtain, the handkerchief loosened, revealing the small man's face to be that of Eric Mendoza. Private complainant recognized him because he used to work in her uncle's steel factory in Tumana, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. After the medium-built man had tied her hands with the curtain band and gagged her with a torn t-shirt, the small man helped him carry private complainant to the bathroom. It was then that she noticed the missing jalousie blades on the window. The medium-built man sent the small man out of the bathroom, through the window, to stand guard on the terrace roof. Alone with private complainant inside the bathroom, the medium-built man removed the handkerchief covering his face, raised her t-shirt and began sucking her breast. While keeping the knife pointed at her neck, he forcibly removed her jogging pants and underwear, laid her on the bathroom floor, and sexually abused her for about two minutes. In the meantime, private complainant could see the small man peeping through the window and watching her being raped. After satisfying his lust, the medium-built man threatened to kill her and her family if she would tell anyone about what had happened. He went out through the bathroom window and joined the small man on the terrace roof. In the early morning of August 23, 1991, private complainant's husband arrived and learned of the incident from her. At about 10:00 o'clock that morning, they reported the crime to Mr. Rico Jude Sto. Domingo, the Barangay Chairman of Tumana, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. On August 25, 1991, they also informed the Sta. Maria Police of the incident, but they deliberately left out the details regarding the rape to avoid public embarrassment. They reconsidered later their decision to keep the rape a secret. On August 27, 1991, they went to the office of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where private complainant was examined by Dr. Floresto Arizala, Jr., a medico-legal officer. They returned to the Sta. Maria Police Station and reported the rape. After trial, the court gave full credence to the evidence of the prosecution which it found to have established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. ISSUE: Whether the fact that the stolen items were not recovered from him by the police means that he did not commit the crime HELD: NO. Mendoza underscores that the stolen items were not recovered from him by the police. It has never been the rule in this jurisdiction, however, that such a fact can diminish the guilt of a robber whose

complicity in the crime has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption that a person in whose custody are found stolen items, is prima facie the robber or the thief, does not translate into a converse presumption that a person indicted for robbery or theft should be acquitted when the authorities do not recover the stolen items from him. The production in court of the stolen property is not an indispensable requisite to sustain conviction as long as there is clear proof of the commission of the crime charged.