People vs. Sanchez

Positive identification of the accused by a witness who had adequate opportunity to observe the perpetrators during the commission of the crime prevails over the accused’s denial, and minor discrepancies in the description of the accused do not render the identification incredible; there is no statutory or jurisprudential requirement that a police line-up be conducted for an extrajudicial identification to be valid.

On March 27, 1991, an armored van of Allied Bank, driven by Nestor Boticario and carrying two security guards and a bank teller, was traveling along Quirino Highway in Novaliches, Quezon City. A red Lancer blocked the van, and several heavily armed men alighted, fired shots into the van, and forcibly took a bag of coins and a service shotgun. The incident resulted in the death of Boticario and injuries to security guards Rodolfo Donasales and Romeo Emnacin. The prosecution’s case turned on the identification made by Emnacin, who named Jose Salazar and Carlito Sanchez as among the assailants.

• The Robbery: On the morning of March 27, 1991, an Allied Bank armored van driven by Nestor Boticario was proceeding along Quirino Highway, Novaliches, Quezon City. Seated beside Boticario was security guard Rodolfo Donasales; in the back were security guard Romeo Emnacin and bank teller Rowena Lopez. A red Lancer suddenly blocked the van. Several heavily armed men alighted, surrounded the van, and fired a volley of shots into it. Boticario, Donasales, and Emnacin were all hit. From a small window at the rear, Emnacin saw appellant Carlito Sanchez and Jose Salazar among those firing. The assailants ordered the passengers to alight; only Emnacin complied, as the others were either gravely wounded or lying flat. Upon descending, Emnacin was struck with a gun butt and shot by Salazar on the right shoulder, causing him to lose consciousness. The robbers took a bag containing about ₱61,000 in coins and a SPAS 12 service shotgun valued at ₱12,000. Boticario later died at the hospital. Donasales sustained seven wounds, while Emnacin sustained three; both were treated and recovered. Lopez escaped unhurt.

• Identification and Arrest: While hospitalized, Emnacin was questioned by police investigators. He described the perpetrators, enabling the police to develop leads. On May 17, 1991, members of the Special Investigation Group arrested Jose Salazar near his residence in Valenzuela, Bulacan, based on information linking him to several Metro Manila robberies. Salazar named Carlito Sanchez as a companion in the armored van robbery. A follow-up operation the next morning led to Sanchez’s arrest in Caloocan City. Both men allegedly admitted participation in the robbery during interrogation. Emnacin subsequently identified both Salazar and Sanchez at the police station. No formal police line-up was conducted.

• Trial and Defense: At trial, the prosecution presented oral testimony from Emnacin, the police officers, and the attending physician, as well as documentary evidence including the joint affidavit of arrest and Emnacin’s affidavit. Emnacin categorically stated he could not forget the faces of the assailants and identified both accused in open court. Carlito Sanchez took the stand in his defense, denying involvement and claiming he was a simple fish vendor. Jose Salazar did not testify and later absconded.

• Lack of Opportunity to Observe: Appellant contended that Romeo Emnacin did not have the opportunity to observe the assailants through the small window of the armored van because the attack was sudden and his natural reaction would have been to hide or lie on the floor to avoid being hit.

• Effect of Wounds: Appellant argued that the severity of Emnacin’s wounds rendered him incapable of observing his surroundings and identifying faces.

• Inconsistent Descriptions: Appellant pointed to alleged discrepancies between Emnacin’s affidavit and his trial testimony, noting that Salazar was described in the affidavit as “kayumanggi” (brown) but later described in court as white-complexioned, and that Sanchez was not described as having a mole, which appellant suggested undermined the reliability of the identification.

• Irregular Identification Procedure: Appellant maintained that the identification was irregular because Emnacin identified the accused in a room while they were in handcuffs and accompanied by a police officer, rather than through a proper police line-up.

• Denial vs. Positive Identification: Appellant assigned as error the trial court’s application of the rule that denial cannot prevail over positive identification, arguing that the identification itself was flawed.

• Credibility of Identification: The People maintained that Romeo Emnacin was a trained security guard, conditioned to be alert and observant, and that contrary to appellant’s claim, the natural reaction of victims of criminal violence is to strive to see the faces and features of their assailants. Emnacin had a second opportunity to view the perpetrators face-to-face when he alighted from the van before being shot again. The alleged discrepancies in description referred to minor details — skin tone being a matter of subjective perception, and a mole not so distinctive as to be unforgettable — and did not impair the credibility of the positive identification.

• Weight of Denial: The People argued that appellant’s bare denial, unsupported by any corroborating evidence, could not overcome the positive and credible testimony of a prosecution witness who had no ill motive to falsely implicate him.

• Credibility of Identification: Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the positive identification of the appellant by witness Romeo Emnacin despite alleged lack of opportunity to observe, inconsistent descriptions, and the absence of a police line-up.

• Designation of Crime: Whether the trial court correctly designated the offense as “robbery with homicide and physical injuries.”

• Credibility of Identification: The positive identification was properly credited. As a trained security guard, Emnacin was expected to be alert and observant; the natural human reaction to a violent attack is to observe the assailants’ faces and movements, creating a lasting impression that is not easily erased. Emnacin had two chances to see the perpetrators — through the van’s window during the assault and face-to-face when he alighted and was subsequently struck. His wounds were not serious enough to incapacitate him before he had identified the assailants; he remained lucid and conscious until he was hit with a gun butt and shot. The alleged inconsistencies — Salazar’s complexion described as “kayumanggi” in the affidavit and “white” in court, and the omission of Sanchez’s mole — pertain to minor, subjective details that do not detract from the overall accuracy of the description that led to the arrest of the accused. Philippine jurisprudence imposes no requirement that a police line-up be conducted for an extrajudicial identification to be valid; an identification made in a police station room, under proper circumstances, can be sufficient. Accordingly, appellant’s bare denial could not overcome the positive identification.

• Designation of Crime: The offense should be designated simply as “robbery with homicide.” Under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the term “homicide” is used in its generic sense, embracing not only acts resulting in death but also other injuries causing anything short of death, regardless of the number of homicides or physical injuries committed. The trial court’s phrase “robbery with homicide and physical injuries” was erroneous and was corrected to “robbery with homicide.”

• Positive Identification Over Denial — Where the accused presents a bare denial and the prosecution offers a positive identification by a credible witness who had no motive to testify falsely, the positive identification prevails. Denial, being inherently weak and self-serving, cannot overcome affirmative and credible testimony.

• Natural Reaction to Observe Assailants — The most natural reaction of victims confronted with criminal violence is to strive to observe the looks and faces of their assailants and the manner in which the crime is committed. The face and body movements of the perpetrator often create a lasting impression that is not easily erased from memory. (Citing People v. Dolor, 231 SCRA 414 [1994])

• No Legal Requirement of a Police Line-up — There is no statute or rule requiring a police line-up as indispensable to a proper out-of-court identification. Identification may be made in a room in a police station provided the necessary proprieties are observed. (Citing People v. Padua, 215 SCRA 266 [1990])

• Generic Meaning of “Homicide” in Robbery with Homicide — For purposes of Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, “homicide” is understood in its generic sense; it covers not only the act that results in death but also any other acts that produce injuries short of death. Consequently, the crime is properly designated as “robbery with homicide” irrespective of the number of homicide or physical injuries committed. (Citing People v. Servillon, 236 SCRA 385 [1994])

• “[W]hen extraordinary circumstances take place, what is natural is for persons to remember most of the important details of the occurrence. In People v. Dolor, we held that the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence is to strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime is committed. Most often, the face of the assailant and his body movements create a lasting impression on the victim's mind and cannot thus be easily erased from memory.”

• “There is no law requiring a police line-up as essential to a proper identification. Identification can be made in a room in a police station even if it were not in a police line-up as long as the required proprieties are observed, as in the case at bench.”

• “The term ‘homicide’ under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code is used in its generic sense, that is, it embraces not only the act which results in death but also other acts producing anything short of death, and is so designated regardless of the number of ‘homicide’ and/or ‘physical injuries’ committed.”

• People v. Dolor, 231 SCRA 414 [1994] — Followed and applied for the principle that victims of criminal violence naturally strive to observe their assailants’ faces and movements, creating a lasting impression that supports positive identification.

• People v. Padua, 215 SCRA 266 [1990] — Cited as authority for the rule that there is no law requiring a police line-up as essential to a valid identification.

• People v. Cobre, 239 SCRA 150 [1994]; People v. Miranda, 235 SCRA 202 [1994]; People v. Pascual, 208 SCRA 393 [1992] — Cited collectively to support the doctrine that denial cannot prevail over positive identification by a credible witness.

• People v. Servillon, 236 SCRA 385 [1994] — Relied upon for the interpretation that “homicide” in Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code is used generically to include physical injuries, such that the crime is simply designated as “robbery with homicide.”

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Punishes robbery with homicide. The Court interpreted the term “homicide” in this provision as generic, encompassing both death and physical injuries, thus the proper nomenclature of the offense is “robbery with homicide” regardless of whether physical injuries were also inflicted.

Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ.