You are on page 1of 5

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES


7th Judicial Region
Branch 7
Cebu City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. : P-06-120490

IAN JAY ABROGAR, et al.,


Accused.

FOR: Viol. of Art. 302 (2) of the RPC

x------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION

Comes now the public prosecution and unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully submit this memorandum and state:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The prosecution, through the undersigned Private Prosecutor, charges Ian Jay
Abrogar and Duke Pardillo Quirante with the crime of Robbery in an uninhabited
place, defined and penalized under Art. 302 (2) of the Revised Penal Code. The accused
conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to gain, by means of force upon
things, forcibly enter the storage house of Charles A. Santos, located in Barangay
Kamagayan, Cebu City, by destroying walls of the said storage house, where accused got
entry and once inside, the said accused, took, robbed and carried away, assorted iron tools
to wit: 1) one (1) shovel, 2) one (1) steel pipe, and 3) motorcycle stand with a total worth
of Php2,700.00 belonging to Charles A. Santos, to the damage and prejudice of the said
offended party in the said amount.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Page 1 of 5
Suspects gained entrance to the storage house of Charles A. Santos by destroying
wallings, and once inside then carted away said assorted items placed then inside the sack
bag. Quirante served as look out. While in the process of fleeing, they were intercepted
by the tanods who were conducting roving patrol thereat. They confiscated the stolen
tools.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT IAN JAY ABROGAR AND DUKE PARDILLO


QUIRANTE COMMITTED THE CRIME OF ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED
PLACE PENALIZED UNDER ART. 302 (2) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

IAN JAY ABROGAR AND DUKE PARDILLO COMMITTED ACTS IN


VIOLATION OF ART. 302 (2) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.

ART. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building. — Any


robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in a building other than those mentioned in
the first paragraph of article 299, provided that any of the following circumstances is
present:

2. If any wall, roof, floor or outside door or window has been broken. (Luis B.
Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two)

In the instant case, it is proven that one of the circumstance of robbery in an


uninhabited place is evident.

Witnesses in their statements, saw accused, Ian Jay Abrogar and Duke Pardillo
coming out of a hole in the wall of Mr. Charles A. Santos’ warehouse, with a sack bag. It
is presumed that the hole which the two accused took their exit where committed through
force upon things with the items recovered which positively identified by the owner of
the storage house as his.

The owner also in his statement thereat convincingly identified the storage house
as an uninhabited place referred under Art. 302 of the Revised Penal Code. Also the
opening or hole in the walling was intentionally made to gain entrance as supported with
the statements of the barangay tanods.

Page 2 of 5
POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS.

It is a settled rule that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by a credible witness.(People v. Atadero, G.R. No. 183455,
October 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 327, 345.) Under the circumstances, the alibi of the
appellant is weak. The alibi was not corroborated.
The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity
of the criminal, for, even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be
no conviction without proof of the identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt.1 In
that regard, an identification that does not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake
cannot be accorded any evidentiary force.2 The intervention of any mistake or the
appearance of any weakness in the identification simply means that the accused’s
constitutional right of presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved is not
overcome, thereby warranting an acquittal,3 even if doubt may cloud his innocence.4
Indeed, the presumption of innocence constitutionally guaranteed to every individual is
forever of primary importance, and every conviction for crime must rest on the strength
of the evidence of the State, not on the weakness of the defense.5
Witness, Paul Mercader and owner Charles A. Santos, positively identified the two
accused as the person who destroyed the wallings of the storage house with force upon
things and took the assorted items owned by Charles A. Santos in his storage house
which is considered as an uninhabited place under the definition provided under Art.299
of the Revised Penal Code.

ACCUSED INTERPOSED ALIBI AS DEFENSE.

The Supreme Court has many, many decisions ruling that mere denial and alibi are
weak defenses that cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of a
1
People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 141644, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 478; People v. Esmale, G.R. Nos. 102981-82, April 21,
1995, 243 SCRA 578.
2
People v. Fronda, G.R. No. 130602. March 15, 2000, 328 SCRA 185; Natividad v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
40233, June 25, 1980, 98 SCRA 335, 346; People v. Beltran, L-31860, November 29, 1974, 61 SCRA 246,
250; People v. Manambit, G.R. Nos. 72744-45, April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 344, 377; People v. Maongco, G.R. Nos.
108963-65, March 1, 1994, 230 SCRA 562, 575.
3
People v. Raquel, G.R. No. 119005, December 2, 1996; 265 SCRA 248, 259; People v. Salguero, G.R. No. 89117,
June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 357; Natividad v. Court of Appeals, G.R. L-40233, June 25, 1980, 98 SCRA 335, 346.
4
Pecho v. People, G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996, 262 SCRA 518, 533; Perez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
76203-04, December 6, 1989, 180 SCRA 9; People v. Sadie, No. L-66907, April 14, 1987, 149 SCRA
240; U.S. v. Gutierrez, 4 Phil. 493 (1905)
5
People v. Pidia, G.R. No. 112264, November 10, 1995, 249 SCRA 687, 702
see also People v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 84332-33, May 8, 1996, 256 SCRA 611 (holding that where the
identification made by the wife of the victim was held to be reliable because she had known the accused for a long
time and was familiar with him, considering her being positive that it was the accused who had shot her husband
although she saw only the back part and the body contour of the assailant. At the time she saw him, the accused
was only four meters away, and there was sufficient illumination from a lamp post six meters away from the house
of the victim and his wife); People v. Jacolo, G.R. No. 94470, December 16, 1992, 216 SCRA 631 (holding that where
the conditions of visibility were favorable and the witness did not appear to be biased against the man on the
dock, his or her assertions as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted, more so where the
witnesses were the victims, or near-relatives of the victims, because these people usually strove to remember the
faces of the assailants)

Page 3 of 5
prosecution witness. Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is
a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. And the defense of alibi is also a
flimsy shield against conviction.
In People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Anticamara y Cabillo and
Fernando Calaguas Fernandez a.k.a. Lando Calaguas, G.R. No. 178771, June
8, 2011, it was held that Between the categorical statements of the prosecution
witness, on one hand, and the bare denial of the appellant, on the other, the former
must perforce prevail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative
testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. Alibi
and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and
self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They are considered with
suspicion and always received with caution, not only because they are inherently
weak and unreliable but also because they are easily fabricated and concocted.
Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses who
were not shown to have any ill-motive to testify against the appellants.
The shopworn rule is that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused
was at some place else at the time of the commission of the crime, it must also be
proved by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him
to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and commit
the crime. His aunt’s testimony that he was seen sleeping outside the polling place
from 1:00 o’clock to 3:00 o’clock in the early morning of May 9, 1995 must be
taken with a grain of salt inasmuch as accused-appellant failed to present other
disinterested witnesses aside from a close relation to corroborate his claim that he
was nowhere near complainants home at the time of the commission of the crime.
People of the Philippines vs. Bobby Agunos, G.R. No. 130961, October 13, 1999

In the instant case, accused denied the acts imputed against them and stated that
they were just passing the area of the crime scene and did not commit the act of unlawful
taking and causing the destruction of the storage house wallings. Such defense of alibi is
generally considered with suspicion and weak as strong evidence and can easily be
fabricated. The fact that the accused passes by the crime scene it is presumed that they
were there and can attain familiarity of the area of taking the course as their way of going
home from work. They alleged that they were merely construction workers working in a
construction site adjacent to the place where they were caught flatfooted by the roving
tanods in flagrante delicto on the act of stealing, robbing, and carting away several tools
from the inside of the warehouse.
The accused in the case at hand professed that the accused failed to meet the
requisites for alibi to be considered as a valid defense. It is not enough to believe that
their act of passing by the place where the robbery took place do not pin point them as
one of the suspects. Being a construction worker is also an unacceptable reason of taking
possession of the things which they claim as theirs which statement was contradicted by
the true owner of the things.

Page 4 of 5
RELIEFS
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed to this HONORABLE COURT,
that judgment be rendered making Ian Jay Abrogar and Duke Pardillo liable for the injury
suffered by Charles A. Santos.
Other relief just and equitable is likewise prayed for.

Cebu City, November 5, 2018.

Atty. Blesyl May S. Mabano


Private Prosecutor

Page 5 of 5