Case Digest: DUNDEE A. VIERNES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

DUNDEE A. VIERNES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

494 SCRA 247 (2006), THIRD DIVISION

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila convicted appellant Dundee Viernes for violation of P.D. No. 532 (the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974), in relation to a robbery committed inside a passenger jeepney, which resulted in the death of a certain Ronaldo Lopango. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the trial court decision by finding petitioner guilty of simple robbery under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

Viernes argues that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because of the failure of the prosecution to show that the illumination of the jeepney, which allegedly bore Josefina and her husband, Ronaldo Lopango, was adequate enough to enable one to identify him. However, Josefina was hesitant to identify him as one of the malefactors. Moreover, the prosecution failed to present any of the police officers who apprehended and investigated him. Viernes further draws attention to inconsistencies in the statements of Josefina, and accuses Josefina of conspiring with the police officers in torturing him so as to force him to admit his participation in the crime.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Dundee Viernes is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of violation of P.D. No. 532

HELD:

After a considered review of the records of the case, this Court finds that the guilt of Viernes has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In crimes of robbery, the offender must be proven to have unlawfully taken personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything.

While the general rule is that contradictions and discrepancies between the testimony of a witness and his sworn statement do not necessarily discredit him since ex parte statements are generally incomplete, the rule is not without exception as, e.g., when the omission in the sworn statement refers to a very important detail of the incident which the one relating the incident as an eyewitness would not be expected to fail to mention, or when the narration in the sworn statement substantially contradicts the testimony in court.