G.R. No. 88872 ; July 25, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIRGILIO OSIAS y MALLARI and FERNANDO SANCHEZ y DE LA CRUZ, accused; VIRGILIO OSIAS y MALLARI, appellant.

FACTS

On April 25, 1984, Romeo Cuaderno was riding his bicycle along J.P. Rizal Street, Kalookan City, when accused Fernando Sanchez tried to grab it. While they grappled, co-accused and appellant Virgilio Osias, positioned behind Cuaderno, stabbed him on the left side of the neck with a knife. The assailants then fled with the bicycle. Cuaderno walked toward a nearby hospital but collapsed and died shortly thereafter from the stab wound. The incident was witnessed by Ricardo Durana, who was standing across the street approximately six meters away with an unobstructed view.
Appellant Virgilio Osias was charged with robbery with homicide. At trial, he interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at his family residence the entire day preparing coconut jam for sale. He was convicted by the Regional Trial Court and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in giving credence to Durana’s testimony, which he claimed was weak, inconsistent, delayed, and given by a paid witness, and that Durana failed to positively identify him.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Virgilio Osias of robbery with homicide based on the eyewitness testimony of Ricardo Durana.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, modifying only the civil indemnity. The Court found no merit in appellant’s challenges to the credibility of eyewitness Ricardo Durana. First, the delay in Durana’s formal report to the police six days after the incident did not impair his credibility. The Court recognized that initial reluctance to get involved in a criminal case is common and understandable; Durana satisfactorily explained he waited until after the victim’s burial. His immediate notification of the victim’s relatives bolstered his reliability.
Second, the claim that Durana was a “paid witness” was unsubstantiated. The fact that the victim’s father, a neighbor and family friend, encouraged him to testify is natural and does not equate to payment that would taint testimony. The Court held that mere friendship with the victim’s family does not automatically discredit a witness.
Third, the Court rejected the assertion that Durana failed to positively identify appellant. Durana’s testimony was clear and consistent: he had a full view of the incident, recognized appellant by face and the nickname “Benjie,” and positively identified him in court. This positive identification categorically placed appellant at the crime scene. Consequently, appellant’s defense of alibi must fail. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused, especially when, as here, it was not physically impossible for appellant to have been at the scene given his admission of being in the same city that day. The trial court’s findings on credibility are accorded great weight, and no substantial reason was presented to overturn them.