You are on page 1of 2


The alibi of the accused that at that time of the incident he was in McDonalds Tikay
Branch, does not detract from the possibility that he committed the crime of robbery considering
the sequence of the circumstances and facts which may be inferred and established from previous
established facts.
The Rule on Circumstantial Evidence under the Rules of Court provides that:
RULE 133 - Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Section 4.Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for

conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstances;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a

fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence established
(Espineli v. People, G.R. No. 179535, June 9, 2014).

In the instant case, the complainant alleged that the incident happened around 7 o’clock
in the evening, while the accused alleged that at the time of the incident he was at the
McDonalds buying food for his family as provided in Exhibit 2 and 2-a. The undisputable fact
both of these allegations is that both happened within Tikay, Malolos area, where the McDonalds
branch located and where the jeepney was or where the jeepney is traversing.

What may happened that day is that the accused boarded the jeep, grabbed the necklace
of complainant, jumped off the jeepney and run to McDonalds Tikay and ordered food so that he
would not be suspected that committed the crime. It should also be noted that accused is a
dispatcher and as he stated, his duty was only up until 6:30 P.M., then he went to McDonald’s
Tikay. The accused being a dispatcher has that sufficient knowledge of the route and place where
he can resort to or hide after the incident.

Another thing to point out is that, considering the time or period when accused was
apprehended, which is one week after and when he presented the receipt as evidence, it is highly
improbable that accused still have or kept the receipt without any motive and/or intent to use it
for the future. It is improbable, considering his status in life, being only dispatcher and not
having money to post bail, such receipt, is nothing but a trash and even an average reasonable
person would not keep it for any purpose.

Thus, it can be inferred from these circumstances that accused had planned not only to
commit the crime but also prepared his possible alibi when he will be confronted afterwards.

Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial
court may draw its conclusion on a finding of guilt. Even in the absence of direct evidence,
conviction can be had if the established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain, consistent
with each other and to the hypotheses that the accused is guilty, to the exclusion of all other
hypothesis that he is not. Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential since to insist on direct
testimony would, in many cases, result in settling felons free and denying proper protection to
the community (People vs. Urzais, G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016)
Regarding that time when complainant pointed at the accused, the accused raised the idea
that the former was not that sure and that to point out the accused, complainant needed to ask her
friend Susana regarding the identity of accused, it should be taken in consideration that
complainant, after the incident was shocked and nervous to the point, Susana and not
complainant called the attention of the driver to stop the jeepney for complainant and her friend
Susana run after the accused.

In People v. Pondiveda the Court held:

“Positive identification pertains essentially to proof of identity and not per se to that of being an
eyewitness to the very act of commission of the crime. There are two types of positive
identification. A witness may identify a suspect or accused in a criminal case as the perpetrator
of the crime as an eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the crime. This constitutes
direct evidence. There may, however, be instances where, although a witness may not have
actually seen the very act of commission of a crime, he may still be able sitively identify a
suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as for instance when the latter is the person or
one of the persons last seen with the victim immediately before and right after the commission of
the crime. This is the second, type of positive identification, which forms part of the
circumstantial evidence, which, when taken together with other pieces of evidence constituting
an unbroken chain, leads to only fair and reasonable conclusion, which id that the accused is the
author of the crime to the exclusion of all”

Complainant’s testimony definitely cannot fall under the first category of positive identification.
However, with the circumstances provided by the accused and the complainant, the second form
of positive identification establishes with certainty that the accused feloniously took the necklace
from the complainant.

It is true that at the time of the incident, the jeepney was full of passengers, it should be noted
that the accused sat beside the complainant, the latter may be only 70% sure of the identity of the
accused considering that she did not suspected anyone to grab her necklace, but her friend
Susana, who was with complainant and seating also beside her, has this knowledge and judgment
that may fill the 30% uncertainty of witness.
This argument that may be raised by the accused should merit in favor of complainant as
it points and plays the determination of the identity of accused and strengthens the certainty that
said accused was the one who committed the crime of robbery.
Hence, considering the foregoing, the above circumstances constitute an unbroken chain
that inexorably lead to one fair conclusion: that accused committed the crime.