Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus- CA-G.R. CR. No. 03558

ERWIN ENTES y
MINASALVAS and JOHN
DOE,
Accused.

ERWIN ENTES y
MINSALVAS,
Appellant.
x------------------------------x

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

Appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, through the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), to this Honorable
Court, respectfully states:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

In an Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 10-

69262 filed with the Regional Trial Court, Sixth Judicial
Region, Iloilo City, and subsequently raffled to Branch 23
thereof (trial court), appellant Eric Entes y Minsalvas
(appellant) and his unidentified co-accused (John Doe) were
charged with Robbery with Violence and Intimidation Against
Persons, as defined and punished under Article 294(5) of the
Revised Penal Code as amended, allegedly committed as
follows:

That or on or about October 24, 2010, in

1
Made without reference to the records of the case due to lack of access to the records brought about by the
SARS Cov2 pandemic.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 2
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

the Municipality of Lucena, Province of Iloilo,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused
with violence and intimidation, armed with a
bladed weapon, conspiring and confederating
with a certain “John Doe”, enter the
“THERPAUL INTERNET CAFÉ” and once inside,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, steal and carry away
Laptap(sic) Computer (Packard Model) valued
at EIGHTY THOUSAND (P80,000.00) Pesos,
owned by and belonging to Ma. Theresa
Espinosa, to the latter’s damage and prejudice
in the afore-stated sum.

Contrary to Law.2

During arraignment, only appellant was present. He

pleaded “Not Guilty” to the crime charged. His unidentified
co-accused remained at large.3

Subsequently, pre-trial conference of the case was

conducted, during which the prosecution and the defense
entered into the following stipulation of facts and issue:

1. the identity of the accused Erwin Entes

as the one charged and subsequently
arraigned;

2. the private complainant executed an

affidavit in connection with this case;

3. the private complainant is a resident of

New Lucena, Iloilo;

xxx xxx xxx

7. one of the policemen who responded and

went to barangay Guinobatan in the early
morning of October 5, 2010 was Police Officer
Cosmeflor Marco;

8. the police arrived at Barangay

Guinobatan at about 1:00 o’clock in the
morning of October 25, 2010;

2
RTC Decision, p. 1
3
Ibid., p. 2
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 3
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

9. Becky Lusuego Lera-og, a woman

neighbor of the accused was also at the police
station when the accused was there in the
early morning of October 25, 2010 at around
1:00 o’clock; and

10. Barangay Bolalacao and Barangay

Guinobatan are already outside the Poblacion
of New Lucena, Iloilo;

The sole issue is whether or not accused

committed the crime charged in the
Information (Pre-Trial Order dated February
15, 2011).4

Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued, during which the

prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: (1)
private complainant and eyewitness Ma. Theresa Espinosa;
(2) PO1 Antonio Santiaňes and (3) PO3 Julius Combong, the
police officers who conducted the hot pursuit operation that
led to appellant’s arrest; and (4) Eladio Pinedez, Jr., an
eyewitness to the robbery/hold up incident. For its part, the
defense presented the following witnesses: (1) Vicky
Agoniza, the owner of the watermelon farm where appellant
worked and resided at the time the robbery/ hold up
incident took place; (2) Larry Martinez, a neighbor of Vicky
Agoniza; and (3) Baltazar Lera-og, a co-worker of the
appellant at the watermelon farm.5

After hearing the case on the merits, the trial court

promulgated its Decision convicting appellant of robbery
with violence and intimidation against person, as charged.
The decretal portion of the said Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

court finds the accused Erwin Entes GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
Robbery (Art. 294, Par. 5 of the Revised Penal
Code,(sic) and is hereby sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS and
FOUR (4) MONTHS of prision correccional as
the minimum to SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1)
DAY of prision mayor as the maximum.
4

Ibid.
5
Ibid., pp. 2-9
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 4
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

Accused is likewise ordered to pay private

complainant the amount of P25,000.00, for the
value of the item subject of the robbery,
representing his civil liability.

SO ORDERED.6

Feeling aggrieved, appellant interposes the present

appeal and assigns the following errors on the part of the
trial court:

1. [THE TRIAL COURT ERRED] IN HOLDING

THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT ON THE BASIS OF
INCREDIBLE AND SUSPICIOUS
DECLARATIONS OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES ON HIS IDENTIFICATION[.]
2. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING
THE ACCUSED EVEN IF HE WAS NOT
VALIDLY ARRRESTED[.]
3. THE COURT A QUO DISREGARDED THE
UNCONTROVERTED TESTIMONY(sic) OF THE
DEFENSE WITNESSES AS REGARDS(sic)
THE PRESENCE OF THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT WHEN THE ACCUSED WAS
PICKED UP[.]7

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS

Private complainant Ma. Theresa P. Espinosa (Espinosa)

operates a computer shop business named Therpaul Internet
Café located at Elvas St., Poblacion, New Lucena, Iloilo. The
said computer shop is open from 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M.
Espinosa testified that at around 11:00P.M. of October 24,
2010, during the eve of an election, she was with her
younger brother, Iladio Pinedez (Pinedez) and two (2)
customers inside her computer shop. Espinoza was about to
close the shop when a man, herein appellant, suddenly
entered, approached her and tried to stab her with a knife
he was holding.8

The man was unable to stab Espinosa because she was

6
At p. 18
7
Appellant’s Brief, p. 8
8
RTC Decision, pp. 2-3
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 5
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

standing behind a counter near the shop’s front door, and

she was able to step back. When the man was not able to
reach her, the man took her Packard Bell laptop which was
placed about one and a half (1½) meters from the counter
and about two (2) meters from the shop’s front door. The
man hurriedly left with the laptop, leaving the laptop’s cord.
When the man was already outside, Espinosa went to the
shop’s door to lock it. She saw through the glass portion of
the door that the man was leaving the premises aboard a
motorcycle driven by an unidentified man. She and her
brother Pinedez went outside their shop and shouted
“makawat” (thief). She saw the motorcycle turn to the left
towards the direction of Brgy. Bololacao, New Lucena. 9

She then went to the police station which was a

hundred (100) meters away from her shop to report the
incident. Espinosa and her brother Pinedez joined the police
officers who conducted a hot pursuit operation against the
robbers. They were able to track down appellant by going to
Brgy. Bololacao and asking the bystanders about the
whereabouts of the motorcycle used by appellant as his
getaway vehicle.10

Prosecution witnesses PO1 Antonio Santiaňes (PO1

Santiaňes) and PO3 Julius Combong (PO3 Combong) both
testified that the police were able to track down the robber
by asking the by-standers in Brgy. Bololacao about the
direction of the motorcycle ridden by the alleged robber.
The by-standers pointed towards the direction of Brgy.
Guinobatan. At Brgy. Guinobatan, the police officers again
asked by-standers for the whereabout of the motorcycle
ridden by the robber, and they were pointed to the place
where the motorcycle stopped – a house beside a road. The
police saw the motorcycle parked by a hut near the said
house. The police knocked on the door of the said house.
Appellant, who opened the door, was identified by private
complainant Espinosa and by her brother Pinedez as the
man who had earlier robbed their shop. Espinosa positively
identified appellant as the robber based on his face and the
shirt he was wearing, which is identical to the shirt worn by
the man who robbed her shop.11
9
RTC Decision, p. 3-4
10
Ibid., p. 3
11
Ibid., pp. 4-5
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 6
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

As the police officers were not armed with a warrant, it

was private complainant Espinosa who effected a citizen’s
arrest upon appellant, who was made to board the police
patrol car. Thereafter, appellant was brought to the police
station where he was informed of his Miranda rights and
investigated.12

Prosecution witness Pinedez testified that while he was

shutting down the computers at Espinosa’s shop, a man
kicked the shop’s door, entered the shop, and directed the
knife he was holding towards his sister. Pinedez was
shocked by the sudden, unexpected attack. Pinedez
described the man as slim and approximately 5’6” tall. He
saw the man grab his sister’s laptop and board a motorcycle
driven by another person. He saw that the said motorcycle
headed towards Brgy. Balolacao. Pinedez saw that aside
from the man whom they later identified as appellant, there
was another motorcycle with two (2) other male passengers.
Pindez saw the motorcycle boarded by the robber speed
away and turn left towards Brgy. Balolacao, New Lucena. As
both he and his sister Espinosa were eyewitnesses, they
accompanied the police who conducted the hot pursuit
operation against the robber. When they reached the house
where the subject motorcycle was said to have gone,
Pinedez and Espinosa saw appellant open the door. They
were able to identify appellant as the person who robbed
Espinosa’s computer shop because appellant wore the same
t-shirt which he remembers as color yellow or dirty white
color. During cross-examination, Pinedez confirmed that he
saw appellant’s face for about two (2) minutes during the
robbery incident. The headlights of the police patrol that he
and Espinosa were riding were pointed towards the house
where they saw appellant. The illumination clearly showed
appellant’s face.13

ARGUMENTS

The prosecution established

12
Ibid., p. 5
13
Ibid., pp. 6-7
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 7
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

appellants' guilt for the crime

of robbery with force by proof
beyond reasonable doubt.

Appellant assails the trial court's decision convicting

him and his co-accused of simple robbery, as charged. He
contends that he is entitled to an acquittal because the trial
court’s findings were based on the incredible testimonies of
the private complainant Espinosa and Pinedez on his
identification as the robber who forcibly entered Therpaul
computer shop, tried to stab Espinosa, and took her laptop.
He further claims that the testimonies of his witnesses as to
his whereabouts at the time the robbery/holdup took place
was more credible than the testimonies of the prosecution
eyewitnesses. Lastly, he claims that his warrantless arrest
was invalid because it was not the private complainant
herself who effected his arrest, but the police officers who
conducted the hot pursuit operation against him. Appellant
insists that at the time he was arrested, he was not
committing any crime.14

In a nutshell, this appeal revolves around two issues:

(i) validity of appellant’s warrantless arrest; and (ii) the
credibility of the prosecution eyewitnesses.

Appellant’s contentions do not persuade.

Appellee People respectfully submits that the trial court

correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
simply robbery with use of violence for the taking private
complainant Espinosa’s laptop through violence and by using
force in opening the door of Espinosa’s computer shop.

Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code defines robbery

in general as a crime committed by “any person who, with
intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to
another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any
person, or using force upon anything.”15

Article 294 of the same Code, as amended by RA No.

14
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 8-12, 14-30, 30-41
15
People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 200922, Jul. 18, 2012
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 8
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

defined and punished robbery with violence against or

intimidation of any person.16

The essential elements of Robbery are: (1) there is

taking of personal property; (2) the personal property
belongs to another; (3) the taking is with animus lucrandi;
and (4) the taking is with violence against or
intimidation of persons or with force upon things.”17

In robbery, it is required that there be a taking of

personal property belonging to another. This is known as the
element of asportation, the essence of which is the taking of
a thing out of the possession of the owner without his privity
and consent and without the animus revertendi.18 In fact, if
there is no actual taking, there can be no robbery. Unlawful
taking of personal property of another is an essential part of
the crime of robbery.19

It is also worth noting that while the fourth requisite of

robbery mentions “with violence against or intimidation of
persons” or “force upon things”, only the phrase “with
violence against or intimidation of persons” applies to the
kinds of robbery falling under Section One, Chapter One,
Title Ten of the Revised Penal Code (robbery with violence

16
ART 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. - Penalties. - Any person guilty
of robbery with use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:

1. The penalty of from reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the
crime of homicide, shall have been committed; or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by
rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, when or if by reason
or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263
[Serious Physical Injuries] shall have been inflicted.
3. The penalty or reclusion temporal when by reason or on occasion of the robbery any of the physical
injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, shall have
been inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if
the violence or intimidation employed in the commission or the robbery shall have been carried to a
degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when in the course of its execution, the
offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the physical
injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263.
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in
other cases.

17
Ablaza v. People, G.R. No. 217722, Sept. 26, 2018; emphasis supplied
18
AQUINO. Revised Penal Code, p. 97, citing CJ 607 cited in Salvilla, infra.
19
People v. Salvilla, G.R. No. 86163, Apr. 26, 1990
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 9
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

and intimidation of any person). The phrase “with force upon

things”, on the other hand, applies to the kinds of robbery
provided under Section Two thereof.20

Hence, robbery can be committed in three ways, by

using: (a) violence against any person; (b) intimidation of
any person; and/or (c) force upon anything. Robbery with
violence and intimidation against person is provided for
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, while robbery by use
of force upon things is provided under Articles 299 to 305 of
the Revised Penal Code.21

In this case, the eyewitness accounts of the private

complainant Espinosa and Pinedez duly established all the
elements of robbery through violence and intimidation of
persons. Private complainant Espinosa categorically testified
that in the evening of October 24, 2010, at around 11:00
P.M., appellant suddenly entered her computer shop and
immediately tried to attack her with a knife. Appellant only
failed to stab private Espinosa because she was standing
behind the shop’s counter and she was able to step back,
beyond the reach of appellant. She saw appellant grab the
nearby Packard Bell laptop placed near the counter and left
the computer shop in a hurry, leaving the laptop’s charger.
Private complainant Espinosa and her brother, prosecution
eyewitness Pinedez were able to see appellant as he was
about to leave the premises aboard a motorcycle. Espinosa
and Pinedez were able to see the direction taken by
appellant when they went outside the computer shop to
report the incident to the nearby police station. The police
operatives were able to track down the motorcycle ridden by
appellant and his unidentified cohort by asking bystanders
for the direction taken by the said motorcycle.

Espinosa was able to briefly see and recognize the face

of her attacker, while the latter was trying to stab her with a
knife. Meanwhile, her brother Pindez noticed the shirt worn
by his sister’s attacker. Hence, both prosecution
eyewitnesses were able to recognize appellant as Espinosa’s
attacker and the one who grabbed her laptop inside the
latter’s computer shop during the hot pursuit operation

20
Ibid.
21
Ablaza v. People, supra.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 10
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

conducted right after the report of the robbery incident. In

the assailed Decision, the trial court aptly observed, thus:

Again, Ma. Theresa Espinosa and Eladio

Pinedez positively identified accused as the
perpetrator of the crime of robbery which they
categorically and consistently claimed to have
personally witnessed. Private complainant
testified, thus:

“Q What happened after you called the

owner of the house?

A And afterwards there was a person

who opened the door.

Q Who opened the door, if you know?

A The suspect himself.

Q When you say suspect, [who] do you

refer to?

A The person who entered my shop.

Q What else?

A After seeing the person who opened

the door and after knowing that he
is the same person who entered
my shop, I told the police to arrest
him.

Q And what happened next?

A The policemen told me that they could

not arrest that person, so they
instructed me that I will be the one
who will place him under arrest.

Q How did you do that?

A I pointed [at] him to the policeman as

the person who entered my shop.

Q Can you tell the Honorable Court that

if the one that you arrested is here
in Court right now?

A Yes, ma’am.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 11
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

Q Where is he?

INTERPRETER:

The witness pointed [at] the person

sitting on the bench and when
asked to identify himself, he
answered that his name is Erwen
Entes.

PROS. ACUYADO:

Q Why do you say that this person

whom you pointed out as Mr.
Entes is the one who entered
your computer shop and the
one that opened the door the
same night?

A Because I was able to identify him

at the time when he entered
my shop.

Q How were you able to identify

him?

A Through his face.

Q What else?

A Because he was wearing the same

shirt that he used in entering
my shop and at the time when
he opened the door after we
knocked.

Q Why, what was the clothes that he

was wearing at that time?

A He was wearing a t-shirt and a

short(sic)

Q What kind of short[?] [S]hort pants?

A Jersey short.

Q Are you sure that he is the one?

BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 12
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

A Yes, ma’am.

Q How sure?

A 100% sure. (TSN, pp. 22-24, May

24, 2011, Alitre)22

Indubitably, the trial court correctly found that the

prosecution was able to prove all the elements of robbery
and that it was appellant who deprived private complainant
of her laptop after trying to attack her with a knife. In
convicting appellant of robbery, as charged, the trial court
correctly held, thus:

Through the testimony of private

complainant, Ma. Theresa Espinosa and his
brother, Eladio Pinedez, the prosecution was
able to establish the elements of the crime.
They testified that on October 24, 2010, at
around 11:00 o’clock in the evening, a person
entered the internet café, tried to stab private
complainant with a knife and then took private
complainant’s laptop and immediately fled from
the scene of the incident. This tends to
establish the unlawful taking of the laptop
owned by the private complainant, the taking
was done with violence or intimidation of
persons considering that the person who took
the laptop was armed with a knife and in fact
tried to stab private complainant. Intent to
gain is necessarily presumed with the unlawful
taking of the laptop. All the elements of the
crime are present.

Aside from proving the elements of the

crime, the prosecution must likewise prove,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused
Erwin Entes, was the one who committed the
crime. It should be proven that it was the
accused who entered the internet care, tried to
stab private complainant and took the laptop of
the private complainant.

Private complainant identified the

accused as the person who robbed her internet
café. She was able to point out the accused
when she saw the accused at the house where
she and the responding policemen went to
22
RTC Decision, pp. 15-17
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 13
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

after the incident. She testified that the

accused was wearing what he wore when he
entered the internet shop.

Eladio Pinedez, Jr., the brother of the

private complainant likewise positively
identified the accused. He declared that he
saw the face of the accused at the internet café
and he confirmed that the person at the house
where he, his sister and the responding
policemen went to after the incident is the
same person who robbed the internet café, as
the accused wore the same shirt.

The identification of the private

complainant of the accused as the person who
robbed her internet café when the latter
opened the door of the house was corroborated
by the testimony of the police officers, PO1
Antonio Santianez and PO3 Julius Combong.
Both police officers declared that when accused
opened the door of the second house at Brgy.
Guinobatan, private complainant identified him
as the one who robbed her internet café.

The accused there fore was positively

identified by the witnesses as the person who
entered the internet café, tried to stab the
private complainant and took a laptop before
fleeing the scene.

xxx xxx x x x23

Nevertheless, appellant insists that he should have

been acquitted of robbery, as charged. He claims that the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are inconsistent as
to tarnish their credibility in identifying appellant as the
malefactor who attacked Espinosa with a knife and stole her
laptop.24 He also puts in issue the alleged illegality of his
warrantless arrest because private complainant was
allegedly absent when he was arrested by the police who
had no personal knowledge of the robbery incident.25

Appellants' protestations do not persuade.

23
RTC Decision, pp. 11-12
24
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 8-23
25
Ibid., pp. 30-42
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 14
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

The issues raised by appellant involve the assessment

of the credibility of witnesses is properly within the office of
the trial courts. The trial court's findings on the matter are
entitled to great weight and given great respect and may
only be disregarded if there are facts and circumstances
which were overlooked by the trial court and which would
substantially alter the results of the case. 26 This rule
equally applies in situations where the judge who heard the
case is different from the judge who penned the decision,
for the latter can merely rely on the transcribed
stenographic notes taken during the trial as the basis for
his/her decision.27

In this case, the RTC Decision clearly indicates that the

ponente thoroughly examined the records of the case in
calibrating the controverting testimonies of the witnesses for
the prosecution and the defense. In ruling on the defense’s
allegations of inconsistencies and incredibility in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court
aptly held, thus:

The defense contends that these

inconsistencies will put a dent on the credibility
of prosecution witnesses. It is now the task of
the court to determine whether these alleged
inconsistencies are material so as to affect the
credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses xxx

Among the alleged inconsistencies cited

by the accused, the most important are those
between the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses in relation to what transpired inside
the internet café at the time of the incident.
Accused points out that both the private
complainant Ma. Theresa Espinosa and her
brother Eladio Pindez testified that it took two
minutes for the robber to accomplish the crime
but on cross examination, Eladio Pinedez
changed his tune and admitted that his
statement that it took the robber two minutes
to do it is not correct. Eldadio Pinedez, during
cross examination, agreed that it won’t take
the robber 15 seconds to accomplish the
crime. The changing of the time from two
minutes to fifteen seconds, accused contends,
26
Torres v. People, G.R. No. 206627, Jan. 18, 2017
27
Kumer v. People, G.R. No. 174461, Sept. 11, 2013
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 15
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

made the testimonies of the witnesses not

credible.

The court has to disagree. The

appreciation of time elapsed during the
happening of a crime is subjective, most
especially if the persons being asked of the
time are the victims or the subjects of the
crime. It is to be recalled that Ma. Theresa
was nearly stabbed before the robbery took
place. Her appreciation of the time that
elapsed is clearly subjective considering the
circumstances. The same is true with her
brother. While the robbery may have
happened so fast, to them at that time, could
feel like two minutes have elapsed. This
inconsistency does not necessarily lead to the
conclusion that prosecution’s witnesses are
lying. The fact that witness Eladio Pinedez
corrected his previous statement that the
robbery took TWO (2) minutes to unfold and
end to seconds will not affect the veracity of
his account of what transpired.

Accused likewise raised the argument

that the statements of witnesses as to the
getaway vehicle were likewise inconsistent. xxx
Again, the court is not convinced. There is no
irreconcilable inconsistency with regard to this
part of the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies.
It is entirely possible that one witness saw only
one motorcycle bu the other witness noticed
another motorcycle that left the scene at the
same time. This inconsistency is minor and
will neither affect that credibility of the
witnesses nor the veracity of their declarations.

Accused cited many other inconsistencies

or issues regarding the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses and contends that these
will put a dent to the credibility of the
witnesses. The court, however, considers
these alleged minor inconsistencies pertaining
to details of immaterial nature that do not tend
to diminish the probative value of the
testimonies at issue. These alleged
inconsistencies, however, were on the
declaration of witnesses after the fact of the
commission of the crime. These alleged
inconsistencies dwell mostly on what happened
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 16
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

during the “hot pursuit” that led to the

apprehension of the accused. It is to be noted
that the accused was positively identified by
the eyewitnesses at the scene of the incident.
His identification as the perpetrator was not
relied on the fact that the person arrested was
the same person who fled the incident or
stated differently, the chase or the hot pursuit
was the only basis of the identification of the
accused. The accused was seen and identified
when he committed the robbery by the private
complainant and her brother[,] and was
subsequently identified again by the same
witnesses when they saw him at the house
where he was found by the responding
policemen. The fact that he was identified as
the same person robbing the internet café was
corroborated by the testimony of the
respondent policemen, particularly PO1
Antonio Santianez and PO3 Julius Combong.
The testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses
corroborate one another on material points, as
such the minor inconsistencies therein cannot
destroy their credibility.28

Indeed, the appellant’s contention - that the

testimonies prosecution of the prosecution’s witnesses are
incredible because they are riddled with inconsistencies -
clearly lacks basis. On the contrary, the inconsistencies
pointed out by appellant only bolsters the credibility of the
prosecution’s witnesses.

Settled is the rule that witnesses testifying on the same

event do not have to be consistent in every detail,
considering the inevitability of differences in their
recollection, viewpoint or impression. Truth-telling witnesses
are not expected to give flawless testimonies, considering
the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory. Total
recall or perfect symmetry is not required as long as the
witnesses concur on material points.29

As to the issue of the legality of appellant’s warrantless

arrest, suffice it to state that any question regarding the
legality of a warrantless arrest must be raised before
arraignment. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the
28
RTC Decision, pp. 14-15
29
People v. Roelan, G.R. No. 241322, Sept. 8, 2020
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 17
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

right to question the legality of his arrest especially that

appellant actively participated during trial, as in this case.30

All told, the prosecution having proved all the elements

of the crime of robbery with violence and intimidation
against person and that it was the appellant who was the
author thereof, his conviction should necessarily be affirmed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the

appealed Decision be AFFIRMED in toto for being in accord
with the prevailing law and jurisprudence and the evidence
on record.

Makati City, January 27, 2022.

JOSE C. CALIDA
Solicitor General
Roll No. 24852
IBP Lifetime No. 015360 – 08-18-16
MCLE Exemption No. VI- OSG000228 - 11/08/19

ARLEEN T. REYES
Assistant Solicitor General
Roll No. 41324
IBP Lifetime No. 1885 -05-17-00
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0021131 – 03-26-19

ERIKA FRANCES S. BULURAN-MONZON

State Solicitor
Roll No. 51809

30
Villamor v. People, G.R. No. 200396, Mar. 22, 2017
BRIEF FOR THE APPELEE 18
People vs. Entes
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 38928
x----------------------------------------x

IBP No. 153018/01-15-2021

MCLE Exemption No. VII-Acad003000/07-23-2021

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
Makati City
Tel. No. 988-1674 loc. 797

Copy furnished:

ATTY. JUAN C. SENUPE, JR.

Counsel for the accused-appellant
Room 201, Bldg. B, Liz Complex
Brgy. Bolong Oeste, Sta. Barbara, Iloilo

RTC ILOILO CITY

Branch 23

ATR:EFSB:jra
ENTES [Robbery with Violence]
Viber