G.R. No. 104611 November 10, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIMON JAVA Y MERCADO, accused-appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Felimon Java y Mercado was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City of the crime of robbery with homicide. The prosecution evidence established that on March 19, 1988, at about 3:00 p.m., two men robbed the V. Valdez Trading establishment in Cubao, Quezon City. One of the men, later identified as Java, poked a gun at employee Salvador Cambaya, divested him of P20.00, and herded him and others into the office. The robbers took money, including P50,000.00 from a cabinet. The owner’s son, Michael Valdez, decided to pursue the robbers’ getaway vehicle, a maroon passenger jeepney, with his mother Virginia Valdez. A chase ensued along Katipunan Road where the robbers fired at their car, hitting and killing Michael Valdez. Both Salvador Cambaya and Virginia Valdez gave descriptions of the gunman to a police cartographer. On August 25, 1988, Virginia Valdez positively identified Java as the gunman when she saw him through a window near the Quezon City Hall. Java was arrested and charged. At trial, the defense presented an alibi, claiming Java was at the office of Col. Rodolfo Garcia, then Station Commander of the Quezon City Police, from 2:30 to 4:00 p.m. on March 19, 1988, seeking a letter of recommendation for reinstatement to the police service. Col. Garcia and two police officers corroborated this visit. The trial court rejected the alibi, convicted Java, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay damages.

ISSUE

The core issue, distilled from the eight assigned errors, is whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Felimon Java y Mercado of robbery with homicide based on the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision in toto. The Court held that the positive identification of Java by two prosecution witnesses, Salvador Cambaya and Virginia Valdez, was direct, clear, and positive, outweighing his defense of alibi. The Court found the alibi weak, inherently unreliable, and further undermined by inconsistencies in the defense narrative, particularly regarding the sequence of recommendation letters which suggested the alibi was contrived. The Court ruled that the alleged errors, including challenges to the credibility of identification and the trial court’s assessment of evidence, were without merit. The conviction for robbery with homicide was upheld as being in accordance with law and the established facts.