G.R. No. 199877 ; August 13, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARTURO LARA y ORBISTA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On May 31, 2001, in Pasig City, Enrique Sumulong, an accounting staff, withdrew ₱230,000.00 for company salaries. While in a pick-up truck with three companions, including Joselito Bautista, they were accosted by Arturo Lara. Lara, armed with a gun, demanded the money bag from Sumulong. When Bautista shouted not to surrender it, Sumulong threw the bag to Bautista, who then alighted and fled. Lara pursued Bautista while firing his gun. Bautista was shot, and the money was taken. He later died from his wounds. On June 7, 2001, Sumulong spotted Lara, leading to his arrest and subsequent positive identification in a police line-up by Sumulong and his two other companions.
The defense presented an alibi. Lara claimed he was at his house in Pasig City, digging a sewer trench throughout the day of the robbery-homicide. His neighbor and sister corroborated his presence. He also alleged that his identification was coerced, with a police officer instructing the witnesses to point at him during the line-up. The Regional Trial Court convicted Lara of robbery with homicide, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting this automatic appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Lara’s conviction for robbery with homicide based on the prosecution’s evidence and in rejecting his defenses of alibi and alleged unreliable identification.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Sumulong’s positive and categorical identification of Lara as the armed assailant. The identification occurred under optimal conditions: a clear, face-to-face confrontation in broad daylight during the initial robbery attempt. The subsequent police line-up identification merely reinforced this reliable eyewitness account. The Court found no evidence of improper motive that would lead these witnesses to falsely accuse Lara.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to succeed, the accused must prove not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Lara’s own evidence established that his residence was in the same city, Barangay San Miguel, Pasig. The Court noted the proximity between his home and the crime scene at the intersection of Mercedes and Market Avenues, a distance negotiable within minutes. This proximity utterly negated any claim of physical impossibility. His alibi, supported only by interested witnesses, could not prevail over the positive identification. The elements of robbery with homicide—the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation, and homicide committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery—were conclusively established by the prosecution.