G.R. No. 135196 ; July 31, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OSCAR MANSUETO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On October 26, 1991, in Liloan, Cebu, Jacinto Pepito was shot and killed by an unidentified gunman outside his home. The assailant, after firing the fatal shot, fled on a waiting motorcycle driven by another individual. The gunman remained at large. The driver, however, was identified during the police investigation as Oscar Mansueto. Consequently, an Information for Murder was filed against Mansueto, alleging conspiracy with the John Doe gunman. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of Cleofe Pepito, the victim’s daughter, and Jose Pepito, a resident. Cleofe testified she saw the driver clearly under the light from a nearby vulcanizing shop and identified him as Mansueto, whom she knew as her mother’s paramour. Jose corroborated this, stating he saw Mansueto earlier that evening and again at the crime scene, clearly identifying him as the motorcycle driver under a streetlight.
The defense interposed alibi and denial. Mansueto claimed he was in San Remegio, Cebu, approximately 90 kilometers away, watching Betamax movies with his live-in partner Moisesa Pepito (the victim’s wife) and others from around 7:30 PM until 11:00 PM on the night of the murder. He presented several witnesses, including police officers and Moisesa, to support his alibi.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Oscar Mansueto, as a conspirator in the crime of Murder, beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the positive identification by prosecution witnesses Cleofe and Jose to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish Mansueto’s presence and participation as the driver of the getaway vehicle. Their testimonies were deemed reliable as they had a clear view of the accused under adequate illumination, and Cleofe, in particular, was familiar with him. The Court emphasized that positive identification, when categorical and consistent, prevails over alibi and denial, which are inherently weak defenses.
On the charge of conspiracy, the Court ruled that Mansueto’s act of driving the motorcycle, which facilitated the gunman’s immediate escape after the shooting, demonstrated a community of criminal purpose. His presence was not incidental; it was indispensable to the execution of the crime and the assailant’s flight. This concerted action established conspiracy, making Mansueto equally liable as a principal for the crime of Murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. The Court modified the damages awarded, deleting moral damages for lack of testimonial evidence, but sustained the conviction and the penalty of reclusion perpetua.