G.R. No. L-83902 June 8, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARCADIO MANRIQUE, JR. and JOHN DOE, accused. ARCADIO MANRIQUE, JR., accused-appellant.

FACTS

Arcadio Manrique, Jr. was charged with Murder for the killing of P/Lt. Col. Rodelo Dionglay, the PC-INP Station Commander of San Pablo City, on May 21, 1985. The information alleged the killing was committed with treachery and with insult or disregard of the respect due the victim’s rank. The accused John Doe remains unidentified and at large. The trial court found that at around 6:00 p.m., the victim was playing dama in front of his house in Barangay Bagong Pook, San Pablo City, when appellant, armed with a .38 caliber revolver, and John Doe, armed with a .45 caliber pistol, sneaked from behind. Appellant fired the first shot, hitting the victim at the back. As the victim stood up and ran, John Doe fired successive shots at him. The victim collapsed and died in a nearby house. Eyewitnesses Ricardo Dinglasan and Pablo Recaña provided descriptions of the assailants. An NBI artist made a sketch based on these descriptions. On June 5, 1985, Recaña and Dinglasan identified appellant from a police album. On June 25, 1985, Pablo Recaña and Marlene D. de Mesa (the victim’s daughter) identified appellant in a police line-up at Camp Nakar, Lucena City. Appellant raised defenses of irregular identification procedure and alibi, claiming he was at his workplace at the time. The trial court convicted appellant of Murder and initially imposed the death penalty, but reduced it to reclusion perpetua due to the abolition of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) whether the identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses was conducted in a regular and credible manner; (2) whether the defense of alibi should prevail over the positive identification; and (3) whether the killing was qualified as Murder with the attendant aggravating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. The Court held that: (1) the identification procedure was not irregular; there is no required ceremonial line-up for a valid identification, and minor inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies regarding the number of persons present during the confrontation do not destroy their credibility. The fact that only one of several fetched witnesses identified appellant bolstered the veracity of the identification. (2) The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification by eyewitnesses. Appellant failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, as he admitted the travel time from his house to the crime scene was less than 15 minutes. The trial court found the alibi witness unreliable. (3) The killing was Murder, qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden, unexpected, and done at close range while the victim was unarmed and playing a game. The aggravating circumstance of insult or disregard of the respect due the victim on account of his rank was correctly appreciated, as appellant admitted knowing the victim was the Chief of Police. The Court increased the civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00.