G.R. No. 74783 ; April 22, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO SORIANO y BRUAN @ “RUBEN,” and SALVADOR MEJIA @ “ADONG,” accused-appellants.

FACTS

Near midnight of August 11, 1980, Leonora Corpuz, her son Marcelino, and brother-in-law Natalio Solomon investigated their barking dog in their yard in Bayambang, Pangasinan. While attempting to revive the dog, which appeared poisoned, two armed men appeared. One, identified as appellant Roberto Soriano, shot and killed Marcelino Corpuz. The other, identified as appellant Salvador Mejia, was beside him. The assailants then took the unconscious dog and fled. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.
An information for Robbery with Homicide was filed against Soriano, Mejia, and Restituto Ferrer. The Trial Court convicted Soriano and Mejia as co-conspirators, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnity to the victim’s heirs. Ferrer was acquitted. During the appeal, it was established that Soriano had died on December 17, 1985, prior to the judgment’s promulgation.

ISSUE

Whether the identification of appellants Soriano and Mejia by the prosecution witnesses is credible and sufficient to sustain their conviction.

RULING

Yes, the identification is credible and sufficient. The Court found no reason to doubt the positive identification by eyewitnesses Leonora Corpuz and Natalio Solomon. The incident occurred on a starlit night with illumination from fluorescent lamps inside the house and a 100-watt bulb outside, under which the dog was being examined. The assailants were only about two meters away. Leonora knew Soriano as a former student and had frequently seen Mejia in their barangay. Natalio had known both appellants for years. They confided the appellants’ names to police investigators the very next day.
The defense’s claim of fabricated identification, based on a police blotter entry and the five-month delay in executing sworn affidavits, fails. The blotter was never presented in court, and the entry was not made by the investigators who received the names. The delay in executing affidavits was sufficiently explained by the witnesses’ legitimate fear of retaliation from the appellants, who had unsavory reputations, until the suspects were in custody. Positive identification prevails over the weak defense of alibi, which failed to prove physical impossibility of the appellants’ presence at the crime scene.
However, the conviction of Roberto Soriano is negated as his criminal liability was extinguished by his death prior to final judgment under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing doctrine. The judgment against Salvador Mejia is affirmed with this modification.