[COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION – FORM AND CONSTITUENT ALLEGATIONS] ● A police line-up of the five detained persons, including Verzosa,
persons, including Verzosa, was formed and
10 PEOPLE V. ROMULO VERZOSA and JERRY AVENDANO
August 20, 1998 | Kapunan, J. |
Doctrine:
 In the interpretation of an information, what controls is not the designation
but the description of the offense charged.
 Identification of a person is not established solely through knowledge of the
name of a person. Familiarity with physical features particularly those of the
face, is actually the best way to identify a person.
Facts:
● According to eyewitness Arthur Dojenas, at around 9 am of April 21, 1994, he
boarded a passenger jeepney en route to Divisoria. While the jeepney was
cruising along the C-3 road, one of the passengers, who was later identified as
Romulo Verzosa, suddenly cried out, “hold up ito. Walang papalag.”
● Verzosa grabbed the necklace of one of the passengers who was later identified
as Alberto Aplaon. Aplaon immediately reacted and shouted, “anong hold up?’
as he simultaneously grabbed the firearm of Verzosa.
● When Aplaon successfully wrested the firearm, someone seated at the rear of
the jeepney, later identified as Jerry Avendano, pulled out a gun and shot
Aplaon, hitting his head just above the nape. Aplaon fell to the floor.
● Before alighting from the jeepney along North Bay Boulevard, one of the three
perpetrators snatched the wristwatch of a passenger seated in front of the
jeepney.
● Verzosa, Avendano, and their unnamed associate ran towards the squatters’
area in front of the Sulpicio Lines Compound.
● Dojenas alighted from the jeepney and waited for the police to arrive while the
jeepney driver rushed Aplaon to Tondo General Hospital where he was
pronounced dead on arrival.
● Minutes later, several policemen arrived and conducted an investigation.
● Dojenas volunteered to accompany the policemen to the squatters’ area to look
for and identify the perpetrators, but their search proved futile.
● They then wen to the hospital and were informed of Aplaon’s death.
● Dojenas went with the policemen to the Navotas Police Station where he gave
his statement about the incident before SPO1 Daniel Ferrer.
● At around 12:0 am of May 1, 1994, SPO1 Ferrer was along North Bay Boulevard
conducting a follow-up investigation when Lito Francisco, another victim in a
separate robbery hold-up incident, approached him and told him that he could
identify one of his assailants and accompanied Ferrer to a nearby barangay
where the alleged perpetrator was attending the wake of his grandmother.
● Upon their arrival, Francisco positively identified Verzosa as the perpetrator of
the hold up.
● Immediately, Ferrer frisked Verzosa and found and confiscated from Verzosa a
ruler 8.5 inches long with an improvised knife at its end. Ferrer then
apprehended Verzosa and brought him to the police station for further
investigation.
● Ferrer then went to the house of Dojenas and asked him to go to the police
station to find out if any of those detained there were the perpetrators of the
robbery with homicide incident.
Dojenas unhesitantly and positively identified Verzosa as the one who grabbed
the necklace of Aplaon.
● Three days later, a follow-up police team apprehended and detained Avendano
and Ferrer once again contacted Dojenas to identify the culprits among the
detainees. Dojenas positively identified Avendano as the person who shot
Aplaon.
Verzosa’s Version
 At the time of the incident, he and his cousin were vending prawns at the small
market in Navotas. While doing so, he saw three fair-skinned persons with high
noses and who were wearing long sleeved shirts, run towards the squatters’
area with policemen in pursuit but the authorities failed to arrest him.
 Later in the afternoon, some policemen went to the squatters’ area to pick up a
suspect in connection with a robbery with homicide case.
 The said suspect later on told Verzosa that the police released him after the
victim, who was then at Tondo General Hospital, failed to identify him as one of
the malefactors.
 Verzosa was drunk and attending the wake of his grandmother when the police
picked him up.
 He alleged that the police frisked him and placed a deadly weapon inside his
pocket.
 He was then brought to the police station where he was falsely charged with
illegal possession of deadly weapon.
 While in detention, he claims that Dojenas came and initially could not point to
him as one of the malefactors. It was only when Dojenas went to the police
station a second time that he identified Verzosa as one of the perpetrators.
 He claims that he was not acquainted with Avendano whom he met for the first
time when the latter was also detained two days after his own detention.
 He learned that Avendano lived 200 to 250 meters away from their house only
after they were detained at the police station.
Avendano’s Version
 At the morning of the incident he was at the Powerman Employment Agency in
Padre Faura to file his application for a job in Bahrain and left the agency only at
11 am.
 May 3, 1994: SPO1 Ferrer arrested him and brought him to the Naval Massage
Parlor along North Bay Boulevard where one of its personnel was asked to
identify him as the person who held them up.
 The person failed to identify him but he was nevertheless brought to and
detained at the police station.
 While in detention, he was informed that he would be charged with concealing a
deadly weapon.
 Thereafter, a certain Mrs. Aplaon entered the detention cell but she did not point
to him.
 Later, Ferrer asked him to line-up with four other detainees. Dojenas entered
and pointed to him as one of the malefactors in the April 21 incident.
 He affirmed that he first met Verzosa when they were both detainees at the
police station.
RTC: found Verzosa and Avendano guilty of the crime of highway robbery with
homicide.
Arguments of the defense on appeal:
 Unreliability of the positive identification made by the lone eyewitness who
testified at the trial – Dojenas
o When Dojenas pointed to them as the perpetrators, there were other
detainees inside the detention cell and it was possible that one of those
other detainees could have been the real culprit.
o Dojenas did not point to them right away during the confrontation at the
police station. Neither was Dojena’s testimony corroborated by any other
witness.
o Avendano claims that his name is Cherry and that his middle name is
Pagatpat while the information and the dispositive portion of the assailed
decision speak of a certain Jerry Avendano y Mendoza.
Issue:
1. W/N Dojena’s identification was sufficient to maintain the finding of guilt of the
accused.
2. W/N the elements of conspiracy were proven.
3. W/N the defense of alibi of the accused can be given merit.
4. W/N the trial court erred in convicting the accused of highway robbery with
homicide under PD 532.
Held:
1. YES. Dojenas testified in a straightforward and categorical manner regarding
the identities of the malefactors and he did not waiver despite the grueling and
extensive questions fielded by the defense.
● People v. Tehankee enumerated the factors that should be considered in
adopting the totality of circumstances test in resolving the admissibility of out-
of-court identification of suspects.
○ The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime
○ The witness’ degree of attention at that time
○ The accuracy of any prior description given by the witness
○ The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification
○ The length of time between the crime and the identification
○ The suggestiveness of the identification procedure
● Using this test, Dojenas’ identification of the accused at the police line-up
is solid and convincing.
○ The robbery was staged in broad daylight so visibility was clear and
Dojenas had all the opportunity to see the culprits.
○ He witnessed every detail of the hold up since he was one of the
passengers and would naturally be keenly observing what would happen
next as he faced the same danger that the victim did.
○ Seeing appellants again at the police station and at the police line-up
within two weeks after the incident, Dojenas could still sufficiently
remember their features and distinctly tag them as culprits.
● Appellants were placed in police line-ups with other persons precisely to test the
eyewitness if he could readily identify the real perpetrators. The presence of
several other detainees, notwithstanding, Dojenas was successful in picking out
the appellants as the culprits in the robbery with homicide.
● With regards to Avendano’s claim that the name in the information was not his
real name –
○ Identification of a person is not established solely through knowledge
of the name of a person. Familiarity with physical features particularly
those of the face, is actually the best way to identify a person.
○ More often than not, robbers victimize people who are complete strangers
to them and who do not know them by face or name purposely to avoid
being recognized and positively identified.
○ The natural reaction of the victims of criminal violence is to strive to see the
appearance of their assailants and observe the manner the crime was
committed.
○ Shown that Dojenas had no ill motive to falsely testify against the
appellants.
○ Avendano raised the issue of his being charged and convicted allegedly
under a wrong name for the first time on appeal. Having failed to make an
objection as to his exact name in the course of the trial, it was too late for
him to raise the matter on appeal.
2. YES.
● Appellants claim that they did not know each other prior to their detention so
they could not have possibly conspired in committing the act.
● In conspiracy, direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is
not necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the
offense was perpetuated, or inferred from the acts of the accused when such
point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.
● Verzosa simultaneously announced the hold up, pulled out his gun tucked in his
pants, pointed his gun at Aplaon and grabbed the latter’s necklace. When
Aplaon resisted and successfully wrested Verzosa’s gun, Avendano pulled
out his gun and shot Aplaon on the head. Not contented with what happened,
before alighting from the jeepney, one of them grabbed the wristwatch of
another passenger seated in front of the jeepney. Both appellants and their
unarmed cohort ran to the same direction.
○ No doubt that there was unity of purpose and design in the execution of the
unlawful act.
3. NO.
● For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not sufficient that appellant proves that
he was not at the crime scene when the incident happened but that it was
physically impossible for him to be there at the time of the commission of the
offense.
● Verzosa was within the vicinity of the scene of the crime with it occurred.
● As to Avendano, other than his self-serving statement, not a single witness or
document was presented to corroborate his story that he was at Powerman
Employment Agency.
4. YES.
● What appellants committed is the crime of robbery with homicide (Art. 294,
RPC).
● A conviction for highway robbery requires proof that several accused were
organized for the purpose of committing highway robbery indiscriminately.
○ No such proof in this case. Neither is there proof that appellants previously
attempted to commit similar robberies to show the indiscriminate
perpetration thereof.
 ○ Nonetheless, the designation of the crime in the information as “highway
robbery with homicide (Violation of PD 532)” does not preclude conviction
of the appellants of the crime of robbery with homicide.
○ In the interpretation of an information, what controls is not the
designation but the description of the offense charged.
○ The crime of robbery with homicide is clearly alleged in the
information notwithstanding its erroneous caption. It is an offense
necessarily included in that with which they were charged.
○ Appellants should be liable for the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. Said crime is committed when, on the occasion of the robbery,
homicide resulted.
○ All those who took part in the robbery are liable as principals therein
although they did not actually take part in the homicide.

Dispositive
WHEREFORE, the Decision convicting appellants Romulo Versoza and Jerry
Avendao y Mendoza (Cherry Abendao y Pagatpat) of the crime of highway robbery
with homicide is hereby MODIFIED. Appellants are found guilty of the crime of
robbery with homicide defined and penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised
Penal Code and are accordingly each imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
They shall jointly and severally pay the heirs of Alberto Aplaon the amount of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P70,000.00 as interment and burial expenses, and
P100,000.00 as moral damages. Costs de oficio.