G.R. No. 117561 June 11, 1997
Julio Marco, Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, Respondents.

FACTS

On March 5, 1989, five armed men barged into the residence of the Ilan family in Brgy. Pook, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The intruders, one of whom remained outside as a look-out, pushed the family and their neighbors inside, locked the door, and threatened them. They frisked Pepito Ilan, struck him on the face and head with a gun, and kicked his 12-year-old son Jimmy when he shouted. Estela Ilan was pushed into a bedroom while the men ransacked the house, stealing a stereo-cassette, video rewinder, alarm clock, jewelry, and cash. Pepito sustained head injuries requiring hospitalization. A week later, the police summoned the Ilans to view detainees. Jimmy Ilan immediately identified Julio Marco, Barry Chavez, and Romeo Caram as among the robbers, which identification was confirmed by Pepito and Estela. Marco, Chavez, and Caram were charged with robbery in band. Only Marco and Chavez were tried, as Caram remained at large and Chavez later jumped bail, leaving Marco as the sole accused at trial. Marco invoked alibi, claiming he was in San Pedro, Laguna, hauling rice for his employer, Navoa, on the date and time of the incident. His employer corroborated his presence. The trial court convicted Marco based primarily on Jimmy Ilan’s positive identification. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of petitioner Julio Marco for the crime of robbery in band was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction. The Court held that the positive identification by witness Jimmy Ilan, who was 12 years old at the time of the incident, was credible, straightforward, and convincing. Jimmy had ample opportunity to see Marco’s face as Marco guarded him and his brothers during the robbery and even kicked him. His immediate and angry recognition of Marco at the police station was deemed a natural reaction. The Court found the failure of the spouses Pepito and Estela Ilan to clearly identify Marco as understandable given their circumstances during the incident (Pepito was injured on the floor, and Estela was accosted and brought to another room). The testimony of a single witness, if credible and convincing, is sufficient to support a conviction. Marco’s defense of alibi was rejected as it could not prevail over positive identification. The Court noted material inconsistencies in Marco’s account and found that he failed to prove the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene, given that San Pedro and Sta. Rosa are only twelve kilometers apart. The alibi was further weakened by the dubious and unnatural testimony of his employer. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in toto.