Primary Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision with the elimination of subsidiary imprisonment, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery in band based on clear and convincing witness identification.

Background

On June 25, 1945, four armed men robbed Dr. Gregorio B. Sison's drug store in Manila. The appellant was identified as one of the robbers who kept watch over the victims while they were forced to lie face down. The case primarily centered on the positive identification of the appellant by two witnesses.

Facts

• 1. On July 25, 1945, at around 8:30 PM, four armed men robbed a drug store at 389 Dimasalang, Manila
• 2. The robbers forced Dr. Sison and others to lie face down
• 3. They stole P200 from the cash register, P7,000 in bills, P500 in silver coins, and diamond earrings valued at P300
• 4. Two robbers went upstairs while two kept watch
• 5. The robbers threatened to shoot anyone who moved
• 6. The appellant was wearing a fatigue uniform with cap during the robbery
• 7. The drug store was illuminated by three gas lights

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Appellant denied participation in the crime
• 2. Could not remember his whereabouts at the time of the robbery
• 3. Claimed he earned a living by selling bread, shoes, pomade, and other items in the market

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Two witnesses positively identified the appellant
• 2. Dr. Sison recognized him when the revolver was stuck against his ribs
• 3. Mrs. Luz Mendoza de Sison heard him being called "Doro" and saw his face twice

Issues

• 1. Whether the identification of the appellant as one of the robbers was sufficiently established

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction
• 2. Clear and positive identification by two credible witnesses
• 3. No unreasonable motive was shown why witnesses would falsely accuse appellant
• 4. The circumstances of identification were convincing
• 5. The fact that witnesses could only identify one of the four robbers strengthened their credibility
• 6. The Court emphasized that banditry deserves no leniency in peacetime
• 7. Penalty: Indeterminate sentence of 6 months to 6 years, 10 months, and 1 day of imprisonment
• 8. Civil liability: P8,000 indemnification to the victim

Doctrines

• 1. Positive identification by credible witnesses prevails over denial
• 2. Credibility of witnesses is strengthened when they can only identify one among several perpetrators
• 3. The doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas on necessity as justification for taking others' property (discussed but not applied)

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article 39, Case 3 of the Penal Code (regarding subsidiary imprisonment)