G.R. No. 70997 February 28, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANIEL JAVIER AND NILO ILAGAN, accused, DANIEL JAVIER, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On April 25, 1982, in Barangay Masaya, Bay, Laguna, Arnel Lat and his father Justino were sleeping atop sacks of palay. Two armed men, identified as Daniel Javier and Nilo Ilagan, approached, fired shots, and ordered the victims to each carry a sack of palay. After walking about 100 meters, the accused ordered them to stop. Javier noticed a flashlight in Arnel’s pocket and ordered him to throw it. As Javier moved to pick it up, Justino rushed and grappled with him. Arnel heard his father call for help and approached, but a shot from Javier’s carbine felled Justino. Arnel then grappled with Javier, who fired more shots and choked Arnel into unconsciousness. Upon waking, Arnel fled. Justino Lat died from his wounds.
The accused were charged with Robbery with Homicide. During trial, Arnel Lat positively identified Javier and Ilagan as the perpetrators. The trial court convicted Javier of the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. His co-accused, Nilo Ilagan, was convicted of simple robbery and did not appeal. Javier appealed, questioning the credibility of Arnel Lat’s identification.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Daniel Javier for the crime of Robbery with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt, particularly challenging the credibility and reliability of the eyewitness identification.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Arnel Lat’s credibility, emphasizing that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The appellant’s arguments against the identification were rejected. The Court found that Arnel, a former elementary school classmate of Javier, had sufficient familiarity to recognize him despite the nighttime setting and the fact that Javier’s face was partially covered. The witness’s opportunity to observe during the prolonged incident, including hearing Javier’s voice, bolstered the reliability of his identification.
The Court also found the defense of alibi weak and unavailing. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The appellant’s witness, who claimed they were together in Oriental Mindoro, could not account for Javier’s whereabouts every minute, failing to negate the possibility of his presence in Laguna. Furthermore, the element of robbery was established by evidence that the accused, armed and with intent to gain, ordered the victims to carry away sacks of palay through intimidation, fulfilling the requirements under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code. The subsequent homicide, arising from the same criminal act, properly constituted the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.