SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224476. August 3, 2016.]
JIMMY RAMOS Y SAN DIEGO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 August 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224476 — Jimmy Ramos y San Diego vs. People of the Philippines
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to show that the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 35407 committed reversible error in affirming with modification the October 30, 2012 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (San Juan City, Branch 160 station) in Criminal Case No. 138633.
The crime of robbery, in general, requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the following elements: (1) the accused took personal property that belongs to another; (2) the taking was unlawful; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (4) the taking was accomplished with the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon things. The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court ruled correctly that these elements were established in this case. The victim identified petitioner as the driver of the motorcycle and Jennifer Dasalla (Dasalla) as the person who intimidated her by pointing a knife at her and grabbing her bag. Petitioner started his motorcycle even before the victim let go of her bag, dragging and injuring her in the process. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is presumed from their unlawful taking of the personal property. The victim's bag and its contents were later recovered in the possession of petitioner and Dasalla during their arrest. It is therefore clear that they acted in concert to achieve a common objective.
Against these pieces of evidence, petitioner's defenses of denial and frame-up cannot prevail.
In addition, petitioner and Dasalla have been personally identified by the victim as the culprits. Greater weight is given to the positive narration of a prosecution witness than to the negative testimonies of the defense. Besides, petitioner and Dasalla failed to attribute motive to the police officers nor to the victim.
Credence cannot be given to petitioner's claims that the victim could not have identified him as the person who robbed her since it was already dark in the area and that there was no time to see him as the incident happened in a matter of seconds. The victim testified that the lighting condition of the place where the incident took place was good enough for her to recognize petitioner and Dasalla as the culprits. Victims also react differently to a startling occurrence. There is no standard behavior for a person experiencing an unusual event. Thus, it is not improbable that the victim is certain in her identification of petitioner and Dasalla as the perpetrators of the crime.
Petitioner's argument that the prosecution failed to prove that the robbery was committed with force upon things must be brushed aside. The victim showed the injuries she suffered from the robbery and submitted a medical certificate to substantiate her testimony during trial. Robbery may be committed with intimidation of the victim or force upon things. It is alleged in the Information that there was intimidation committed upon the victim. The intimidation in this case consisted of the use of a knife, which instilled fear in the victim. EATCcI
ACCORDINGLY, the assailed February 12, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 35407 is AFFIRMED. (J. Brion, on leave)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court