What is the test for determining whether a defendant can be convicted of a robbery where the victim positively identified the perpetrator?

Defendant argues that People v. Gibbons (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 28 controls this case because of the uncertain identification of the perpetrator. There, however, the victim of the robbery positively said the defendant was not the man who robbed him. (Id. at p. 31.) Furthermore, the defendant in Gibbons was not found with any property taken in the robbery so the permissive inference that allows a guilty verdict with slight corroboration was not applicable. (Id. at pp. 29-32.) Gibbons is distinguishable and does not require a different outcome here.