Friday, February 3, 2012

Identifying accused after 3 years - G.R. No. 193672

G.R. No. 193672

"x x x.

Accused Israel assails the manner by which Johnny and Addun identified him. Three years had passed, he said, before they identified him at the trial as one of the robbers. Israel argues that his physical appearance had surely changed through those years, rendering Johnny and Addun’s identification of him inaccurate. Israel also pointed out that the RTC and the CA failed to take into account the witnesses’ “emotional imbalance,” caused by the terrible experience they went through, making their testimonies altogether untrustworthy. The Court disagrees.

Contrary to the theory of the accused, victims of criminal violence are more likely to observe and remember their appalling experience rather than ignore and forget them.[2] Three years are not too long. Such victims are able to recall the faces of and the body movements unique to the men who terrorized them.[3] Parenthetically, the robbery in this case took place in broad daylight, the assailants were not wearing masks or hats, and the frightening episode lasted for several minutes. The offenders tried before fleeing to send their victims up the mountain after robbing them.

Accused Israel claims that the CA improperly ignored inconsistent testimonies regarding the question of whether or not he wore sunglasses during the robbery. But the fact is that Addun and Johnny categorically identified him as the robber among the three who was armed with a .45 caliber pistol. That one of these witnesses had the impression that Israel wore sunglasses could not diminish the strength of such identification.

For his part, all that Israel could claim is that he could not have been involved in the robbery since he was planting rice elsewhere when it happened. But Israel’s house was just near the Maluyo highway, giving him an easy access to any public transport which could bring him to the Logac junction. He was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[4] Thus, in the absence of any improper motive to incriminate Israel, the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses must prevail over his mere denial and alibi.

x x x."