183. People v.

Pineda
GR No. 141644 | 27 May 2004 | Carpio, J.
Aggy | Topic: ​Res inter alios acta rule (2nd branch) – previous conduct as evidence
Case Summary: ​Pineda was charged with Highway Robbery resulting in Homicide, alongside Sison, Colet, Totie
Jacob, and 2 other unidentified suspects. The charges arose from the robbery of the Dreamline Aircon Bus, where the
armed robbers divested the passengers, the driver, and the conductor of their valuables. During the robbery, a
commotion occurred which led to the death of one of the passengers, SPO1 Fuensalida. When the robbers alighted
along Sampaguita St. in Caloocan, the passengers went to the nearby police station to report the incident. Thereafter,
the Chief of the Urduja Police Station assigned the team of SPO1 Alas and PO3 Andaya to conduct a follow-up
investigation of the case. They first went to the police station in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan where the bus was first
brought. Based on information furnished by an unidentified bus passenger, one of the robbers called for one “Totie.”
Inquiry was then made to the police at the station as to whether they knew persons by that name. One of the police
identified the man as Totie Jacob, a member of the gang of Pineda, who was at the time detained, along with Celso
Sison, at the Municipal Jail of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan for another case of robbery. The team proceeded to the
place but they found that Pineda and Sison were already out on bail. Later, the mugshots of Pineda and Sison were
shown to Ferrer, the driver of the bus, and the latter positively identified the duo as 2 of the 6 robbers.

Pineda interposed an alibi as a defense and claimed that he was out working at the house of Victor Villena at the day of
the incident. His testimony was corroborated by his contractor, Lillian Tan. Pineda also claimed that the instant charged
against him was fabricated as he was just implicated by his co-accused Sison, Boyet Tartaro, and Colet, who is a
brother of a policeman and an asset of the police because of the rivalry over a woman he had with Sison. He also
claimed that he figured in a rumble with the nephew of SPO1 Alas, who was the one who arrested him in connection
with the instant case. Efren Quinton, an inmate of Pineda, corroborated this. Quinton narrated that on Oct. 16, 1997,
SPO4 Larenas approached him inquiring on whether he saw Tartato, Colet, and one Tito, who were said to be suspects
in the bus hold-up. Pineda was never mentioned as among those suspected. After the defense was deemed to have
rested its case, Colet was arrested in connection with a different case. The defense then filed a Motion to Reopen Trial
for the purpose of admitting newly discovered evidence brought about by the arrest of Colet. RTC gave the motion due
course and the case was set anew. Colet claimed that he was a passenger of the subject bus, and that Pineda was
neither a passenger nor one of the 6 robbers and that he did not see Pineda at anytime on that evening of Oct. 15,
1997. He also noted the presence of Sison, Spencer, and Totie Jacob inside the bus. RTC nevertheless convicted
Pineda, but acquitted Colet. The court gave credence to the testimonies of the bus driver Ferrer and conductor Ramos.

SC held that Pineda must be acquitted because the prosecution was not able to sufficiently establish his identity as the
perpetrator of the crime charged. Ferrer and Ramos’ mental conception of the incident, the resulting inaccuracy in their
narration, and the suggestiveness of the pictures presented to them for identification cast doubt on their testimonies
that appellant is one of the perpetrators of the crime. SC also noted that in its attempt to pin the crime on Pineda, the
prosecution dug up other criminal cases filed against Pineda. The latter was previously charged with robbery and illegal
possession of a deadly weapon, concealing a deadly weapon, and assault, for which he was released after posting
bond. Sec. 34, Rule 130 provides that “evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible
to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time...” Hence, evidence is NOT admissible
when it shows, or tends to show, that the accused in a criminal case has not committed a crime independent from the
offense for which he is on trial. A man may be a notorious criminal and may have committed many crimes and still be
innocent of the crime charged on trial.

Facts:
● Rolando Pineda was charged with Highway Robbery resulting in Homicide, alongside Celso Sison,
Victor Colet, Totie Jacob, John Doe, and Peter Doe.
● On Sept 5, 1998, Pineda was arrested and detained for other criminal cases. He pleaded not guilty.
○ After Pineda rested his case, Colet was arrested and also pleaded not guilty.
○ The other accused remained at large.

Prosecution’s Version
1. On Oct. 15, 1997, in Caloocan City, the 6 accused posed as passengers of the Dreamline Aircon Bus,
driven by Camilo Ferrer, with Jimmy Ramos as the conductor. There were about 50 passengers on
board and heading for Tungko ,San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.
2. After Ramos collected the fares of the passengers, he posted himself at the front door of the bus when
Pineda, who was sitting behind Ramos, suddenly rose from his seat, prompting Ramos to look at him.
Pineda then held driver Ferre by the neck while poking a gun at his nape and shouted to his
companions: “Totie, ikuha mo ako ng sapatos dyan para maumpisahan na ang laro” and then
announced a hold-up.
a. While Ferrer was looking at Pineda through the rearview mirror, Pineda warned the former to
drive properly if he did not want to die and ordered him to maintain the same speed as the
vehicles preceding them. Pineda also ordered his companions to: “Samsamin niyo lahat ang
masasamsam niyo dyan.” The robbers closed the windows and curtains of the bus, and ordered
the passengers to bow down their heads.
b. Ramos was ordered by Pineda to surrender their daily earnings of P5,700 which the former
readily obeyed by handing over out of fear. It was at that point while Ramos was giving the
money that he took a glance at the left side of Pineda’s face. Afterwards, Pineda also took the
wallet and cash of Ferrer.
c. A commotion occurred when one of the passengers, SPO1 Arnel Fuensalida grappled with one
of the robbers for the possession of his clutch containing his service firearm. The concerned
robber shouted that Fuensalida snatched his gun. Pineda then shouted back, ordering his
companions to kill the police. 6 shots rang out. Pineda also asked the others to check outside if
there were any patrol car following them and told them to stop shooting.
d. Upon reaching Sampaguita St., Caloocan City, Pineda ordered Ferrer to stop the bus and all the
robbers alighted with their loot including Fuensalida’s firearm.
3. The passengers started crying and some even lost consciousness. As suggested by one of them, they
all alighted at the Tungko Police Station. The police, however, referred them to Malaria Police Station
since they did not have jurisdiction.
4. At the Malaria Police Station​: The police looked at the Fuensalida’s cadaver and conducted an initial
investigation. Thereafter, they referred the victims to the Urduja Police Station.
a. PO3 Celerino Susaon and SPO1 Ernesto Madanas of the Urduja Police Station was dispatched
to Malaria. They recovered 2 slugs and 2 empty shells inside the bus.
b. The body of Fuensalida was brought to a funeral parlor where it was identified by his wife. The
police also took down the sworn statements of Ferrer and Ramos, as well as that of Amalia
Fuensalida (wife of the victim Fuensalida)
5. The chief of the Urduja Police Substation 4 assigned the team of SPO1 Carlito Alas, PO3 Napoleon
Andaya, Sgt. De Guzman and other operatives of the Special Operations Group to conduct a follow-up
investigation of the case.
a. Initially, the team repaired to the police station in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan where the bus
was first brought and based from an information furnished by an unidentified bus passenger,
one of the robbers called for one “Totie.”
b. Inquiry was made to the police at the station as to whether they know persons by that name.
One of the police identified the man as Totie Jacob, a member of the gang of ​Pineda, who was
at the time detained, along with Celso Sison, at the Municipal Jail of San Jose del Monte,
Bulacan for another case of robbery​.
c. The team proceeded to the place but they found that Pineda and Sison were already out on bail.
d. After the mugshots of Pineda and Sison were shown to Ferrer, the latter positively identified the
duo as 2 of the 6 malefactors involved in the robbery.
e. With the above findings together with the sworn statements of witnesses and joint affidavits of
SPO1 Alas and PO3 Andaya, as well as the affidavit of PO3 Susson, and other pertinent
documents. The case was referred to the Office of the City Prosecutor, which resulted to the
filing of the instant charge.
 6. The cadaver of Fuensalida was autopsied and the medico-legal found 6 gunshot wounds. However, Dr.
Freyra could not form any opinion as to the number of the assailants.

Defense’s Version
1. Pineda interposed an alibi and claimed that at the day of the incident, he was in the house of Victor
Villena, where he installed the electrical wiring as per contract with his contractor, Lillian Tan. He never
left the said place and Tan even served him lunch and snacks in the morning and afternoon.
a. He went home at 5pm. His house was only 100 meters away or 5 mins. away from Villena’s
house. Upon arriving home, he rested for 5 minutes, took a bath, and at around 6pm, he went to
the nearby house of Tan where he talked with the latter and drank some beer until 9pm.
b. When he went home, he ate dinner and retired to bed at around 10pm.
c. He claimed to have no knowledge of the shooting incident. His house is about 30 to 45 minutes
ride to or from Lagro, QC and a distance of around 4-5km to Quirino Highway, Malaria,
Caloocan, where according to the prosecution witnesses, the shooting incident occurred.
d. He had no previous encounter or quarrel with Ferrer and Ramos. He also saw PO3 Susano for
the first time in court.
2. Pineda claimed that the instant charged against him was fabricated as he was just implicated by
his co-accused Celso Sison, Boyet Tartaro, and Victor Colet, who is a brother of a policeman and an
asset of the police ​because of the rivalry over a woman he had with Celso Sison who is a good
friend of Colet.
a. Celso SIson was also instrumental in his arrest for an alleged violation of PD 1866 filed
with the Municipal Trial Court of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan​, which was however
subsequently dismissed after he posted the required bail bond on August 5, 1999.
b. The pictures shown by the Caloocan police to the witnesses must have been secured by them
from the Court’s file.
c. He was again framed-up by the police on Nov. 15, 1999 when he was arrested for
allegedly concealing a deadly weapon and assault. The inquest prosecutor, however,
ordered his release as no evidence was confiscated from his person. Thus, he was released
from detention on Nov. 18, 1999.
d. His alleged involvement in the instant case was not even brought up by the Sub-station 6
operatives during his custodial investigation before the Prosecutor Acuna
e. In furtherance of the police efforts to file trump-up charges against him, the ​Sub-station 6
implicated him for alleged violation of PD 1866 and Robbery which allegedly happened
on Sept. 5, 1997 despite the fact that he was detained as early as Aug. 5, 1997 at the
Caloocan City Jail. ​Ironically, this resulted in the filing of 2 information in 2 criminal cases
pending before the RTC.
f. While in jail, he met fellow inmate ​Efren Quinton​, who ​expressed surprise on why he was
implicated as Quinton claimed that he knew what really happened and who the real persons
involved were​. Quinton volunteered to testify for Pineda in court.
g. When Pineda was called to the witness stand​, ​he stated that he remembered an event which
occurred on Aug. 15, 1997 when ​he figured in a rumble with the nephew of SPO1 Alas​, who
was the ​one who arrested him in connection with the instant case and whose house was a
distance of around 300m away from his house.
3. Lillian Tan ​corroborated the alibi of Pineda. She maintained that she had no other relationship with
the latter but as his contractor.
4. Efren Quinton ​also corroborated the testimony of Pineda. He narrated that on Oct. 16, 1997, SPO4
Larenas approached him inquiring on whether he saw Boyet Tartato, Victor Colet, and one Tito, who
were said to be suspects in the bus hold-up. ​Pineda was never mentioned as among those suspected.
a. He knew Boyet well as a police aide who used to handle the traffic at the crossroad of
Tungkong Mangga, San Jose del Monte, and a certain Colet because the two were often seen
together.
 b. While SPO4 Larenas mentioned the incident to him as the robbery that happened in Caloocan,
however, the police did not mention any date as to when it took place.

5. Defense was deemed to have rested its case​. However, the ​defense filed a Motion to Reopen
Trial for the purpose of admitting newly discovered evidence brought about by the arrest of Victor Colet
in connection with another case.
a. RTC gave the motion due course and the case was set anew for the reception of Pineda’s
additional evidence which consists solely of Colet’s testimony, which corroborated his alibi.
6. [​Colet’s Version​] Victor Colet testified that he first saw Pineda in 1996 and thereafter used to see him
pass by the house of the woman Colet was courting.
a. He was a passenger of the subject bus and he sat at the right side, third seat from the last. He
noted the presence of Celso Sison, Spencer, and Totie Jacob inside the bus.
i. When the bus was approaching Grotto, Guandanoville Subdivision, Totie, who was
armed with a handgun and then seated one the first seat, right side of the bus, suddenly
stood up and declared a hold-up.
ii. Totie’s companions who were holding a grenade stood up and ordered the passengers
to bow down. Totie’s 4 other companions who were all armed, started divesting the
passengers of their cash and valuables which the passengers dropped in a black duffel
bag upon the instruction of the hold-uppers.
b. Colet claimed that Pineda was neither a passenger nor one of the 6 robbers and that he
did not see Pineda at any time on that evening of Oct. 15, 1997.
c. During cross-examination​, Colet explained that while stooping down, he managed to peep
clandestinely and saw Roberto Sison, Boyet Tartaro, and Celso Sison shooting the policeman
victim who was then in a sitting position; and it was Spencer who was pointing his gun at the
driver.
i. Colet is familiar with Totie since he used to hear the latter’s name in 1994. It was Totie
who was divesting the conductor of his money. ​Colet also claimed that he knew and was
familiar with the other hold-uppers as they lived near each other.
d. He was arrested on Sept. 8, 1999 for illegal possession of shabu and he learned that he was
implicated in this case 3 days after his detention and on the following day, he learned that
Pineda was one of his co-accused.
i. Colet noted that nothing was taken from his as not all the passengers were victims of the
robbery.
ii. He stated that he was a volunteer confidential agent of the San Jose del Monte Police.
After he alighted, he reported the incident to SPO1 Alas and the latter told him that it
would be taken care of. ​SPO1 Alas also asked him if he knew Pineda who was once
detained at the San Jose del Monte Jail to which he answered in the affirmative​.
iii. He assured SPO1 Alas that he will testify in this case once the suspects are
apprehended.

RTC Ruling
● RTC ruled that the proper charge is robbery with homicide under Art. 294 RPC, and not highway
robbery resulting in homicide under PD 532. It found the testimonies of Ferrer and Ramos as “positive,
spontaneous, and forthright.” ​RTC convicted Pineda and acquitted Colet.

Issue/s and Holding:

W/N Pineda was correctly convicted of the crime charged?​ – NO.
[hello epal lang sa decision ‘yung topic as in la pa siyang half page, so I’ll include the other parts in here for context, as to
why Pineda was acquitted but their exhaustive discussion is in ‘OTHERS’]
● SC held that Pineda must be acquitted because the prosecution was not able to sufficiently
establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crime charged.
 ○ The more important duty of the prosecution is to prove the identity of the perpetrator
and not to establish the existence of the crime. For even if the commission of the crime is
established, without proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the perpetrator, the
trial court cannot convict anyone.
○ Ferrer and Ramos’ mental conception of the incident, the resulting inaccuracy in their narration,
and the suggestiveness of the pictures presented to them for identification cast doubt on their
testimonies that appellant is one of the perpetrators of the crime.
■ Ramos originally stated that he could not identify any of the perpetrators as his head was
bowed down then later claimed that he saw how the robbers robbed the passengers and
killed Fuensalida.
■ Ferrer had a limited opportunity to see the perpetrators before the robbery started as he
concentrated on driving.
■ When he first saw the Pineda, Ferrer had no inkling that Pineda would rob them.
○ While it was not physically impossible for Pineda to be at the scene of the crime,
corroboration of his alibi comes from 3 separate sources: Tan, Quinton, and Colet.
■ The prosecution asks this Court to ignore Colet’s testimony because his testimony was
polluted, coming from a co-accused. The flaw in this argument is that Colet is not a
discharged co-accused. The trial court acquitted Colet when it granted his Demurrer to
Evidence, which the prosecution did not even oppose.
● [​FOCUS​] In its attempt to pin the crime on Pineda, the prosecution dug up other criminal cases
filed against Pineda. ​The latter was ​previously charged with robbery and illegal possession of a
deadly weapon, concealing a deadly weapon, and assault​, for which he was released after posting
bond.
● Sec. 34, Rule 130 ​provides that “Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be
received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or
usage, and the like.”
○ Evidence is NOT admissible when it shows, or tends to show, that the accused in a
criminal case has not committed a crime independent from the offense for which he is on
trial.
○ A man may be a notorious criminal and may have committed many crimes and still be innocent
of the crime charged on trial.
● Sec. 14, Art. 3, CONST ​also provides that the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved.
○ An accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the
prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof. Pineda is then entitled to an acquittal.

Ruling:​ Appeal is ​GRANTED. ​Pineda is ​ACQUITTED.

OTHERS
● Although generally the findings of the RTC are entitled to full faith and credit, the reviewing court may
overturn the same where there is a showing that the TC overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied
some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, which, if considered, could materially alter the
result of the case.
● A conviction rests on two bases: (1) credible and convincing testimony establishes the identity of the
accused as the perpetrator of the crime; and (2) the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubts that
all elements of the crime are attributable to the accused. –– ​RTC’s conviction of Pineda fails in both
bases.
● The police arrested Pineda based on an out-of-court identification by Ferrer, who first identified Pineda
and Sison based on the mugshots shown to him by the police. ​However​, the police admitted that the
mugshots of the two accused were the only photographs presented to Ferrer​. (​lol​)
 ○ In resolving ​admissibility of out-of-court identification of suspects​, court have adopted
the t​ otality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors:​ (1) the
witness’ opportunity to view the perpetrator of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at
the time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty
shown by the witness of his identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the
identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
● ITCAB​, although the showing of mugshots is one of the established methods of identifying criminals,
the procedure used is unacceptable.
○ The first rule in proper photographic identification is that a series of photographs must be
shown, and not merely that of the suspect. The second rule directs that when a witness is
shown a group of pictures, their arrangement and display should in no way suggest
which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect.
○ Here, there was an impermissible suggestion because the photographs were only of Pineda and
Sison, focusing attention on the two accused. The police obviously suggested the identity of the
accused.
● Moreover, the testimonies of Ferrer and Ramos show that their identification of Pineda fails the
totality of circumstances test.
○ RTC relied on the testimonies of Ferrer and Ramos to prove that appellant is one of the
perpetrators. On closer examination, however, Ferrer and Ramos failed to establish that what
they saw of the perpetrators is sufficient to produce an accurate memory of the incident.
○ During direct examination​, Ferrer testified that one of the perpetrators, who poked a gun at
his nape, did not allow him to turn back his head. There was then limited opportunity for
Ferrer, while driving the bus, to see the perpetrators.
■ Also, even if SC relied on Ferrer’s insistence that he looked at the rearview mirror, the
testimony of Ramos showed that Ferrer could NOT have seen the robber’s face​.
■ Ramos stated that when he handed the money to the robber, he was able to see
the left side of the latter’s face. Hence, the ​robber was facing the passengers and not
the windshield as Ramos was situated on the 2nd step of the running board at the right
side of the bus, and facing the road. [​Their positions were: (1) Ferrer is on the left (driver)
side facing the windshield, (2) Ramos was on the 2nd step running board at the right
side facing the road, (3) Perpetrator was somewhere between them, on a higher level
than Ramos.​]
● A well-known authority in eyewitness identification made a ​list of 12 danger signals that exist
independently of the identification procedures investigators use​. These signals give proper
warning that the identification may be erroneous even though the method used is proper:
○ (1) the witness originally stated that he could not identify anyone​; (2) the identifying
witness knew the accused before the crime, but made no accusation against him when
questioned by the police; (3) a serious discrepancy exists between the identifying witness’
original description and the actual description of the accused; (4) before identifying the accused
at the trial, the witness erroneously identified some other person; (5) other witnesses to the
crime fail to identify the accused; (6) before trial, the witness sees the accused but fails to
identify him; ​(7) before the commission of the crime, the witness had limited opportunity
to see the accused; (8) the witness and the person identified are of different racial groups; ​(9)
during his original observation of the perpetrator of the crime, the witness was unaware
that a crime was involved; (10) a considerable time elapsed between the witness’ view of
the criminal and his identification of the accused; (11) several persons committed the crime; and
(12) the witness fails to make a positive trial identification. [​the bold ones are the ones
applicable here​]
○ ITCAB, ​Ramos originally stated that he could not identify any of the perpetrators as his head
was bowed down then later claimed that he saw how the robbers robbed the passengers and
killed Fuensalida.
 ■ Ferrer had a limited opportunity to see the perpetrators before the robbery started as he
concentrated on driving.
■ When he first saw the Pineda, Ferrer had no inkling that Pineda would rob them.
○ The more important duty of the prosecution is to prove the identity of the perpetrator and not to
establish the existence of the crime. For even if the commission of the crime is established,
without proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the perpetrator, the trial court cannot
convict anyone. Ferrer and Ramos’ mental conception.
● Generally, the defense of alibi is futile in the face of positive identification of the accused. However, in
some cases the emotional balance of the eyewitness is disturbed by their experience that their powers
of perception become distorted and her identification frequently most untrustworthy.
○ While it was not physically impossible for Pineda to be at the scene of the crime,
corroboration of his alibi comes from 3 separate sources: Tan, Quinton, and Colet.
○ The prosecution asks this Court to ignore Colet’s testimony because his testimony was polluted,
coming from a co-accused. The flaw in this argument is that Colet is not a discharged
co-accused. The trial court acquitted Colet when it granted his Demurrer to Evidence, which the
prosecution did not even oppose.
■ Pineda even believed that Colet falsely implicated him in the crime at the
beginning. He and Colet had a previous rivalry over a woman and Colet is known in their
area as someone with influence, being a police informer. Hence, unless he simply
wanted to tell the truth, Colet was unlikely to testify on appellant’s innocence
when he himself is charged with the same crime and was present at the crime
scene
■ Pineda also attributed motive of revenge to SPO1 Alas as Pineda previously beat up the
latter’s nephew. The prosecution did not present evidence to rebut this statement.