CASE NAME: People v.
Irang AUTHOR: SULLANO
GR: G.R. No. L-45179 Notes: Short case.
TOPIC: Similar Conduct As Evidence
PONENTE: J. Villa-Real
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for robbery, it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as
where it tends to identify defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery charged, or tends to show his presence at the scene or in the
vicinity of the crime at the time charged, or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime.
Emergency Recit:
FACTS:
Seven individuals with white stripes upon their faces, two of whom were armed with guns and two with bolos, went to the house
of the spouses Perfecto Melocotones and Maximiniana Vicente.
They approached Perfecto Melocotones immediately and ordered him to bring his money. Melocotones answered in the
affirmative but before he could do what was ordered him he was attacked with bolos until he fell to the floor. Later another
person armed with a gun went up and approaching Maximiana Vicente, wife of Perfecto Melocotones, struck herein the face with
the butt of his gun, making her lose consciousness.
When she regained consciousness he saw her husband already dead. One of the assailants then said to her: "Bring out the money
and jewelry." Maximiniana Vicente turned over to the man who had struck her with the butt of his gun P70 in cash and jewelry
valued at P200, which she has kept in a trunk. During the short space of time that she was turning over the money and jewelry,
she looked at the man's face and saw that he had pockmarks and a scar on his left eyelid.
That same night the house of Juana de la Cruz was assaulted by malefactors who had been firing shots before arriving at and
going up the house. All of them had white stripe upon their faces. Juana de la Cruz noticed that one of them had pockmarks and a
scar on the left eyelid and was dressed in a maong-colored suit. It was he who opened her trunk.
They reporting to the Philippine Constabulary. Armed with their descriptions, the lieutenant brought back three groups of
people to the house of Maximiana’s house to be identified. It was from the third group where they identified Benjamin Irang.
After being arrested, Irang executed an affidavit admitting to the accusations as against him, but raising the defense that we was
coerced into doing the robbery.
ISSUE(S): W/N
the accused-appellant Benjamin Irang was identified as one of those who assaulted the house of Perfecto Melocotones, killed him and
robbed his wife Maximiniana Vicente of money and jewelry.
HELD: Judgement of the trial court finding the appellant guilty is affirmed.
RATIO:
In the third group presented to her, she immediately pointed at one who turned out to be the herein accused-appellant. The man
pointed at protested but when she told him that it was he who had struck her in the face with the butt of his gun, the appellant
became silent.
The testimony of Juana de la Cruz to the effect that her house, situated only about one hundred meters from that of Perfecto
Melocotones, was assaulted that same night by some malefactors with white stripes upon their faces, and that one of them, with
pockmarks on his face and a scar on his left eyelid and dressed in a maong-colored suit, who later turned out to be the herein
accused-appellant, opened her box, indirectly corroborates Maximiniana Vicente's testimony that the man of the same
description was the open who went to her house and demanded delivery of her money and jewelry, having recognized him later
to be the herein accused-appellant.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
