G.R. No. 104663 July 24, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DAVID SALVATIERRA y EGUIA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On August 17, 1990, at around 4:30 p.m., Charlie Fernandez, a vendor, was walking along M. de la Fuente Street in Sampaloc, Manila. He was met by three persons, one of whom was accused-appellant David Salvatierra. Appellant lunged a pointed instrument at Charlie, who parried the thrust. Appellant swung again, hitting Charlie in the left breast. The three assailants then fled. Charlie managed to walk home to inform his father but collapsed and was taken to the hospital, where he died the following day from the stab wound. The incident was witnessed by Milagros Martinez, an ambulant vendor, who did not immediately report it due to fear. The victim’s father reported the crime to the police. Initial police efforts to identify the culprits were fruitless until a relative named appellant as a suspect. On November 15, 1990, appellant was arrested for creating a commotion. Upon learning he was a suspect in the killing, he was turned over to the Western Police District. Milagros Martinez, after being approached by the victim’s father, executed a sworn statement and identified appellant in a police line-up. Appellant was charged with murder. At trial, he pleaded not guilty and raised the defense of alibi, claiming he was at home with his family at the time of the incident. He also alleged constitutional violations regarding his arrest and custodial investigation. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay actual damages and indemnity.

ISSUE

1. Whether the arrest, investigation, and detention of appellant violated his constitutional rights.
2. Whether treachery attended the killing.
3. Whether the testimony of eyewitness Milagros Martinez was credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction.

RULING

1. On the constitutional issues: The Supreme Court held that appellant is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest because he never raised this issue before entering his plea. Any objection to the arrest or jurisdiction over his person is deemed waived if not raised before pleading. Furthermore, the right to counsel during custodial investigation does not extend to police line-ups, as they are not part of custodial investigation but are investigatory procedures. Even assuming the booking sheet was signed without counsel, this evidence could be disregarded without affecting the prosecution’s case, as there was other incriminatory evidence.
2. On treachery: The Court affirmed the finding of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The victim was merely walking when appellant and his companions assaulted him. The manner of attack ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants.
3. On the credibility of the eyewitness: The Court found the testimony of Milagros Martinez credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Minor inconsistencies in her testimony did not affect her credibility but instead indicated truthfulness. Her identification of appellant was positive and categorical. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification. The crime committed was murder qualified by treachery.
The decision of the trial court was AFFIRMED in toto.