CASE No.

93 (Robbery with Violence)

G.R. No. 116918 June 19, 1997

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
BONFILO MARTINEZ y DE LA ROSA, JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, accused.
BONFILO MARTINEZ y DE LA ROSA, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

At about 6:30 PM of December 28, 1991, while Michael Buenvinida, Glorivic Bandayanon (the guardian of
Michael and his siblings), and several other occupants of the Buenvinida residence were watching television, a
man armed with gun, jumped over the low fence, went in the house through the open front door and introduced
himself as a policeman. On cue, two men followed the first man in entering the house and promptly covered
their faces with handkerchief. The intruders tied the occupants of the house and brought them to the master’s
bedroom with guns pointed at the victims. The burglars seized the cash and bottles of perfume in the room.
One of the perpetrators asked Michael to unplug all the appliances they could possibly take. They also asked
the victims for jewelleries but when they couldn’t give them any, they brought Glorivic to the children’s
bedroom to search for jewelleries in the room. When Glorivic wasn’t able to find anything, the first man
pointed his gun to her and asked her to take her clothes off, despite her pleas, the man succeeded in removing
her clothes and had carnal knowledge with her. After which, the second man entered the room, but the cloth
covering his face fell on his neck so Glorivic was able to identify him (Martinez). Martinez also succeeded in
having carnal knowledge with Glorivic as well as the third man after. Michael was able to witness the three
coming in and out of the room as it was left open and heard Glorivic’s cries and implorations to her
tormentors. After the raping incident, Glorivic was brought her back to the company of the others wearing her
pants inside out, her hair dishevelled, and with blood on her lower part. The felons left with the loots after
intimating to the group by way of a threat that they were going to explode a hand grenade.

After more than two years, appellant Martinez was arrested on March 3, 1994 for soliciting funds for a
fictitious volleyball competition. Glorivic was able to positively identify him among the 8 detainees suspected
to be her malefactor. In a separate instance, Michael was also able to positively identify him with 6 other
inmates due to his prominent mole on the right cheek.

During the trial, appellant denies being involved in the robbery with rape committed in the Buenvinido
residence. He also raised an alibi that he was with his wife and children when the crime happened. Giving
credence, however, to the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution and rejecting appellant's defense of
alibi, the trial court found appellant guilty of the composite crime of robbery with rape and sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the amount of the stolen and unrecovered personal properties,
moral damages to Glorivic Bandayanon, and cost of the suit.

On appeal he questions the credibility of the witnesses’ identification: due to the long interval of time before
they were able to confront him; because the perpetrators covered their face with handkerchief and; because
they could have been so gravely terrified by the criminal acts as to have their mental faculties impaired.

ISSUE:

Whether or not his identification as one of the perpetrators by two of the victims, deserve credence in
determining his guilt on the crime committed.

RULING:
The Court held that the testimonies of the principal witnesses for the prosecution were not only consistent with
and corroborative of each other. Their narrations before the lower court were delivered in a clear, coherent and
unequivocal manner.

There was no perceptible hesitation or uncertainty on the part of Glorivic and Michael when they unerringly
identified appellant during the trial. The unhurried, studious and deliberate manner in which appellant was
identified by them in court added strength to their credibility and immeasurably fortified the case of the
prosecution.

The records also show that the memory of these witnesses were not in any way affected by the passage of two
years and three months since the tragedy. While appellant claims that his face was covered during the
commission of the crime, there were providential points in time when the two witnesses were able to freely see
his face and scan his facial features closely to as to enable them to identify him later on.

Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the two eyewitnesses were so petrified with fear as to result in
subnormal sensory functions on their part. Contrarily, in a recently decided case, we held that fear for one's life
may even cause the witness to be more observant of his surroundings.

Last, the records do not disclose any improper motive on the part of the witnesses to falsely point to appellant
as one of the robber-rapists. It is doctrinally settled that in the absence of evidence showing that the
prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper-motive, their identification of the accused as the assailant
should be given full faith and credit. 

Hence, the decision of the trial court is affirmed in full with modifications that the damages awarded to
Glorivic be increased to Php 50,000.

-------- ======== // ======== --------