G.R. No. 92154 September 12, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Santiago Servillon y Filisis, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On December 5, 1987, six armed men robbed the Batula residence in Taguig, Rizal. During the robbery, Oscar Batula was shot in the shoulder, and his son, 19-year-old Enrico Batula, was shot and killed. The robbers stole cash and wristwatches. Azucena Batula and her daughter Rhodora were present during the incident. Azucena positively identified one of the robbers as unmasked; he pointed a gun at her, took a P100-bill, and snatched her wristwatch. In mid-February 1988, Azucena saw and recognized the accused-appellant, Santiago Servillon, working as a barker at a jeepney terminal in Bicutan. She reported this to the CIS. Servillon was invited for questioning and was positively identified by Azucena and Rhodora in a police line-up. He was charged with Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. The defense presented alibi, claiming Servillon was at a choral practice at Alejandro Olicia’s house, which was about 200 meters away from the crime scene, during the time of the robbery. The trial court rejected the defense, found Servillon guilty of robbery with homicide, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity and damages.

ISSUE

The main issues revolve around the credibility of the witnesses’ identification of the accused and the viability of his alibi defense. Specifically, whether the positive identification by Azucena and Rhodora was reliable despite the defense’s challenges regarding Azucena’s delayed reaction and Rhodora’s affidavit, and whether the defense of alibi was physically impossible.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. The Court held that the positive identification of Servillon by Azucena and Rhodora was credible and reliable. Azucena’s failure to immediately report seeing Servillon was deemed natural given the shock and the lapse of time since the crime. The Court clarified that Rhodora’s statement in her affidavit that she did not know the robbers meant she was not acquainted with them prior to the crime, not that she could not identify them. The defense of alibi failed because Servillon could not prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene; Olicia’s house was merely 200 meters away, a distance traversable in minutes. The Court also corrected the designation of the offense, stating the crime committed was robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as the term “homicide” therein is generic and encompasses acts resulting in death and physical injuries. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00, while the awards for moral damages (P20,000.00), actual damages (P11,675.00), and reparation (P3,100.00) were sustained.