People v.

Irang

119

GR No. 45179, March 30, 1937, Villareal, J.

Digested by Pat Law 126- Evidence
A group of men attacked and robbed the house of Sps. Perfecto and Maximiniana. One of the men struck
Maximiana in the face with the butt of his gun and ordered her to bring out money and jewelry. When she
turned over the same, she saw that the man had pockmarks and scar on his left eyelid. The same night the
house of Juana was also assaulted by a group of men and she also saw that one of the men had
pockmarks and scar on his left eyelid. Later, Maximiana identified accused Irang as the one who attacked
and robbed her. Accused avers that his identity was not sufficiently established. SC ruled otherwise,
giving credence to the testimony of Juana and said that while evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not
admissible in a prosecution for robbery, it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to
identify defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery charged.

FACTS
One night, seven individuals with white stripes upon their faces, went to the house of
Spouses Perfecto and Maximiniana.
One person of the group, armed with a gun, approached Maximinana and struck her in
the face with the butt of his gun, making her lose consciousness momentarily. When she
regained consciousness, she was ordered to bring out money and jewelry.
o During the short space of time she was turning over the money and jewelry, she
looked at the mans face and saw that he had pockmarks1 and a scar on his left
eyelid.
The same night the house of one Juana de la Cruz was assaulted by malefactors who had
been firing shots before arriving at and going the house.
o All of them has white stripes upon their faces and Juana noticed that one of them
had pockmarks and a scar on the left eyelid and was dressed in a maong-colored
suit.
The matter was immediately reported to the police. Maximiano told Lieutenant Alejandre
that the person who attacked her and took her money was a man of regular statute, with a
lean body, and pockmarked face.
o Lieutenant went in search of said individual. Having arrested a groups of persons,
he brought them to Maximianas house so that the latter might identify but she did
not find such man.
o Later, another group was presented to her but neither could she find the man.
o Finally, another group was presented to her and in it she identified accused
Benjamin Irang as the one who struck her and took her money.
Juana de la Cruz also recognized Benjamin Irang through his pockmarks and scar on his
left eyelid.
CFI convicted Irang of the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
ISSUES & HOLDING
1 a pitted scar or mark on the skin left by a pustule or pimple

Whether or not identity of Irang as one of those who assaulted the house of spouses
Perfecto and Maximiana was established conclusively beyond reasonable doubt- YES

RATIO
Identity of accused Irang established
Maximiana, whom accused Irang struck in the face with the butt of his gun and of whom
he demanded delivery of her money and jewelry, scrutinized the latters face and noticed
that he had pockmarks and a scar on his left eyelid.
In the third group of men presented to her by the lieutenant, Maximiana immediately
pointed at one who turned out to be accused Irang. The man pointed at protested but
when she told him that it was he who had struck her in the face with the butt of his gun,
Irang became silent.
While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for robbery, it
is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to identify defendant as the
perpetrator of the robbery charged, or tends to show his presence at the scene or in the
vicinity of the crime at the time charged, or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected
with the crime
The testimony of Juana de la Cruz to the effect that her house, situated only about 100
meters from that of Perfectos, was assaulted that same night by some malefactors with
white stripes upon their faces, and that one of them, with pockmarks on his face and a
scar on his left eyelid, who later turned out to be accused Irang, indirectly corroborates
Maximianas testimony that the man of the same description was the one who went
to her house and robbed her.
Maximianas identification of the accused is likewise corroborated by the latters own
admission in his affidavit that on the night of the crime, he had been invited to assault the
house of Perfecto, which in fact they assaulted although against his will.
o No evidence that the affidavit was not voluntarily executed. Allegations of torture
by the police not proven.
DISPOSITIVE
Affirmed. Guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for the complex crime of
robbery with homicide.