G.R. No. 70133 , July 2, 1990
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Jesus Acosta alias “Jerry,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

On April 28, 1980, Rafael Villavicencio, Jr. was shot dead at the Travel Lodge Restaurant in Lucena City. The assailant escaped. Two months later, Jesus Acosta was charged with murder based on identifications by three prosecution witnesses. Waiter Freddie Osmillo testified that Acosta was a customer for several hours before the killing, left after a brown-out, and later returned through the back door just before the shooting. Bookkeeper Nida de Chavez-Ayado corroborated Osmillo’s account of Acosta’s presence. Jose Tolentino, a companion of the victim, stated he saw Acosta approach their table and lower a gun after the shot. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Acosta was in Atimonan, Quezon, at the time, supported by a friend’s testimony.
Acosta appealed his conviction, challenging the sufficiency of his identification. He argued the process was impermissibly suggestive, as Osmillo and Ayado identified him while he was alone in his detention cell, and Tolentino identified him after being shown a solitary photograph and in a police line-up where Acosta was the shortest and wore the same clothing from the photo. The defense contended this procedure undermined the reliability of the identification.

ISSUE

Was the identification of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime established beyond reasonable doubt, thereby rendering his defense of alibi unavailing?

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Court scrutinized the identification procedures. It found the methods used for Ayado and Tolentino were indeed suggestive and unreliable; their identifications were consequently rejected. However, Osmillo’s identification was upheld as independently reliable. Osmillo had extensive, direct interaction with Acosta as his waiter for nearly two hours in a well-lit setting before the brown-out, providing ample opportunity for a clear mental impression. His subsequent viewing of Acosta in detention merely served to confirm a pre-existing recollection, not to create a new one. This positive identification, based on personal observation prior to any police suggestion, was deemed credible and sufficient to establish Acosta’s identity as the killer.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. Alibi cannot prevail against the positive and credible identification of the accused. The testimony supporting the alibi was unconvincing, and the distance between Atimonan and Lucena City did not preclude Acosta’s presence at the crime scene. The killing was qualified by treachery (alevosia), as the victim was shot from behind without warning. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and an indemnity of P30,000.00 were properly imposed.