PEOPLE vs. NUÑEZ, G.R. No. 209342, OCTOBER 4, 2017, RULE 130, SECTION 21. Qualification of witnesses

 

RULE 130, SECTION 21. Qualification of witnesses.

PEOPLE vs. NUÑEZ, G.R. No. 209342, OCTOBER 4, 2017

LEONEN, J.:

FACTS: Nunez (allegedly Paul pobre), Marciales, Nabia and alias “Jun”, armed with handguns, rob Caltex gasoline station of 5k. They shoot and killed Regencia, Diaz and Dimatulac. Only Marciales and Nabia were tried at first. RTC found them guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to death. The case against Pobre and Jun was archived subject to revival upon their apprehension. Nunez was apprehended by the PNP on the premise that he was the same ''Paul Pobre" identified in the Informaation. Nuñez moved that the case against him be dismissed as he was not the "Paul Pobre" charged in the Information. However, prosecution witnesses identified him as 1 of the alleged robbers. During trial, the prosecution adopted the evidence already presented in Marciales and Nabia's trial and recalled prosecution witnesses Cruz and Perez where they both positively identified Nunez as among the perpetrators of the crime. RTC found Nunez guilty of robbery with homicide. CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether or not Nuñez is the same person, earlier identified as Paul Pobre, who acted in conspiracy with Marciales and Nabia based on the testimony of the eye witnesses.

HELD: NO. The prosecution did not account for the details of the presentation of Nunez to the 2 witnesses after he was arrested. These witnesses' alleged positive identification occurred almost 8 and 9 years from the time of the commission of the offense.

A witness' credibility is ascertained by considering the first two factors, the witness' opportunity to view the malefactor at the time of the crime and the witness' degree of attention at that time, based on conditions of visibility and the extent of time, little and fleeting as it may have been, for the witness to be exposed to the perpetrators, peruse their features, and ascertain their identity.

The totality of circumstances test requires a consideration of the length of time between the crime and the identification made by the witness. Ideally a prosecution witness must identify the suspect immediately after the incident.

The identification made by Cruz and Perez is unreliable. Despite their identification, there remains reasonable doubt if Nuñez is the same Pobre who supposedly committed the robbery with homicide along with Marciales and Nabia. Cruz's admission that she could not identify the fourth robber anathemized any subsequent identification.

The witnesses failed to even give any prior description of him. A prosecution witness failed to exhibit even the slightest degree of certainty when originally given the chance to identify him as the supposed fourth robber. A significantly long amount of time had lapsed since the criminal incident; the original witness' statement that none of his features were seen as to enable his identification; and the positive identification made of him when the case was re-opened. His presentation for identification before and during trial was peculiarly, even worrisomely, suggestive as to practically induce in prosecution witnesses the belief that he, to the exclusion of any other person, must have been the supposed fourth robber.  Nunez is acquitted.