G.R. No. 1800 : April 24, 1905

FACTS:
A robbery was committed, and some of the stolen items were presented as evidence during the trial. The core question was the individual guilt of the two accused.
1. Against Fermin Gregorio: The evidence included (a) the testimony of the victim (the injured party) who claimed to have identified him during the robbery, and (b) the fact that a watch belonging to the victim’s husband, which was among the stolen articles, was found in Gregorio’s possession. Gregorio attempted to explain his possession by claiming he bought the watch from a certain Marcelo, a claim corroborated by a witness. However, the court found this witness’s testimony unconvincing because, despite claiming to have witnessed the purchase for the purpose of identifying the watch, he admitted under cross-examination that he could not, in fact, identify it. The court also disregarded an alleged confession reported by Constabulary Inspector Lorenzo Ramos, as the trial court found it was not proven to be voluntary and was uncorroborated.
2. Against Antonio Dural: The only evidence linking him to the crime was the victim’s trial testimony that she had also identified him during the robbery. However, it was established that during the preliminary investigation before the justice of the peace, the victim had only identified Fermin Gregorio, not Dural, even though both were presented to her. When confronted with this contradiction at trial, she affirmed her earlier statement to the justice of the peace but claimed she “used to know both of them.” No stolen property was found in Dural’s possession.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the guilt of appellants Fermin Gregorio and Antonio Dural for the crime of robbery has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING:
1. As to Fermin Gregorio: GUILTY. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. The combination of the victim’s positive identification and Gregorio’s unexplained possession of a recently stolen item (the watch) constituted sufficient proof of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. His explanation for the possession was deemed unreliable.
2. As to Antonio Dural: ACQUITTED. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction. The victim’s contradictory statementsidentifying only Gregorio in the preliminary investigation but claiming at trial to have identified bothcreated reasonable doubt regarding her identification of Dural. With no other corroborating evidence (such as possession of stolen goods) against him, his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the lower court was AFFIRMED with respect to Fermin Gregorio, with one-half of the costs against him. It was REVERSED with respect to Antonio Dural, who was acquitted and exempted from costs.