People v. De la Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 25, 1945, at approximately 8:30 p.m., four armed men robbed Dr. Gregorio B. Sison's drug store. The robbers, armed with revolvers, forced Dr. Sison and others inside to lie down. They stole P200 from the cash register, P7,000 in bills, P500 in silver coins, and a pair of diamond earrings valued at P300. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted the appellant, Teodoro de la Cruz y Tojos, of robbery in band and sentenced him to an indeterminate sentence, to indemnify the offended party, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs. The appellant appealed this sentence. The Petition: The appellant prayed for his acquittal, denying participation in the crime. The prosecution recommended affirming the decision but eliminating the subsidiary imprisonment due to the principal penalty imposed being higher than prision correccional.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant was sufficiently identified as one of the perpetrators of the robbery. Whether subsidiary imprisonment is applicable in this case.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, with the elimination of the subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The costs were taxed against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of identification: The Court found that the appellant was conclusively identified by prosecution witnesses. Dr. Gregorio B. Sison recognized the appellant when he was held at gunpoint and later when he was pushed into the drug store, noting his fatigue uniform and cap. Luz Mendoza de Sison testified that she heard one of the robbers call the appellant "Doro" and that she was able to see his face clearly when she tried to raise her head, despite a companion's threat to shoot her. Detective Alejandro Eugenio testified that Luz Mendoza de Sison identified the appellant as "Doro" during a police identification procedure. The Court considered the witnesses' ability to single out the appellant among the four robbers, given the circumstances that made identification possible, and the absence of any apparent motive for them to falsely accuse him, as factors strengthening the credibility of the identification. On the issue of subsidiary imprisonment: The prosecution recommended the elimination of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, citing Article 39 of the Penal Code. The Court agreed with this recommendation, noting that the principal penalty imposed was higher than prision correccional, making subsidiary imprisonment inapplicable. The Court also briefly addressed a suggested correction regarding the designation of the penalty, deeming it a mere lapsus plumae without needing specific pronouncement.
Main Doctrine
The identification of the appellant by prosecution witnesses, despite the circumstances of the crime, was found to be credible and sufficient to establish his participation in the robbery. The Court also clarified the inapplicability of subsidiary imprisonment when the principal penalty exceeds prision correccional.