G.R. No. 88752 July 3, 1992
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Danilo Manansala y Palisoc, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On March 17, 1986, at about 9:30 PM, Pat. Hector Colmo and his girlfriend Fe Nisperos were seated on a bench in a shed at the Food Terminal Compound in Bicutan, Taguig, Rizal, waiting for a ride. Three men were seated at the other end of the same bench. Nisperos heard a shot and fled, but upon turning back, she saw Colmo slumped on the ground with a bleeding head. One of the three men jumped over the bench, pointed a gun at her, and took the pistol from the fallen victim. She looked at the man, who then fled with his two companions. Colmo died from the gunshot wound in the head. Danilo Manansala was later charged with robbery with homicide committed in conspiracy with two unidentified persons, with aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery. After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity and damages. He appealed, challenging the credibility of the eyewitness, Fe Nisperos, and presenting an alibi defense.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) whether the positive identification of the accused-appellant by eyewitness Fe Nisperos is credible and sufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence; and (2) whether the defense of alibi should prevail.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction, with modification to the civil indemnity. The Court held that the positive identification by eyewitness Fe Nisperos was credible, definite, and given under well-lighted conditions. Her testimony established that she saw the gunman clearly when he aimed at her and took the victim’s pistol, and she identified Manansala as the person seated nearest to her who was trying to hide his face. The defense’s attack on her credibility, based on alleged hesitation during earlier identifications, was rejected, as any hesitation did not vitiate her credibility given the lapse of time. The defense of alibi presented by Manansala, corroborated only by Bienvenida Bodomo Manansala, was inherently weak and further flawed by inconsistencies; it could not prevail over the positive identification. The Court found that the killing was aggravated by treachery, as the victim was shot from behind without any opportunity for defense. However, the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was rejected for lack of proof as to how and when the plan was hatched. The Court also held that conspiracy was established, making every co-conspirator equally liable for the crime, regardless of who fired the fatal shot. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.