In People v. Hernando, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Reynaldo Hernando for murder, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness identification and the inadequacy of alibi as a defense. The Court underscored that positive identification by credible witnesses, who had a clear opportunity to observe the perpetrator, outweighs the defense of being elsewhere at the time of the crime. This ruling reinforces the importance of eyewitness testimony in Philippine criminal law and sets a high bar for alibi defenses, requiring proof of physical impossibility to be present at the crime scene.

When Eyewitnesses Speak: The Case of Victoria Sturch’s Murder

The case revolves around the murder of Atty. Victoria Mangapit Sturch in Baguio City on April 13, 2004. Two eyewitnesses, Alain James Dirige and Rhea David, identified Reynaldo Hernando as the gunman. Dirige, a taxi driver, witnessed the shooting, while David, a store owner, saw the incident from nearby. Based on David’s initial description, a cartographic sketch was made, leading to Hernando’s identification. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Hernando was in Pangasinan at the time, but the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the eyewitness accounts more credible, resulting in Hernando’s conviction.

The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on the admissibility and reliability of the eyewitness identification. The Court applied the totality of circumstances test, established in People v. Teehankee, Jr., which considers several factors to determine the validity of out-of-court identifications:

Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. x x x. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz.: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.

Applying this test, the Court found that both Dirige and David had ample opportunity to view the gunman, their attention was focused on the incident, David provided an immediate description, and there was no evidence of undue suggestion by the police. Thus, the out-of-court identification was deemed reliable. Even if the out-of-court identification had been flawed, the Court emphasized that the witnesses’ independent in-court identifications were sufficient to establish Hernando’s guilt.

The Court reiterated a principle from People v. Rivera, stating that even if the out-of-court identification is tainted, a subsequent positive identification in court cures any defect. This principle underscores the importance of the witness’s direct testimony during the trial.

Even assuming arguendo that the appellant Alfonso Rivera’s out-of-court identification was tainted with irregularity, his subsequent identification in court cured any flaw that may have attended it. Without hesitation, the two prosecution witnesses, Renato Losaria and Juanito Baylon identified the appellant as one of the assailants. In People v. Timon, the accused were identified through a show-up. The accused assailed the process of identification because no other suspect was presented in a police line-up. We ruled that a police line-up is not essential in identification and upheld the identification of the accused through a show-up. We also held that even assuming arguendo that the out-of-court identification was defective, the defect was cured by the subsequent positive identification in court for the “inadmissibility of a police line-up identification x x x should not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court identification.”

The defense of alibi was given little weight, as the Court found it inherently weak and insufficient to overcome the positive identification by the eyewitnesses. The Court noted that to successfully invoke alibi, the accused must prove not only that they were elsewhere but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. In this case, the evidence presented by the defense did not establish physical impossibility, as Hernando could have traveled from Pangasinan to Baguio City within the relevant timeframe.

The Court also addressed the qualifying circumstance of treachery, which elevates the crime to murder. Treachery exists when the offender employs means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves, arising from the defense the victim might make. The Court agreed with the trial court’s finding that Hernando’s act of shooting Atty. Sturch from behind, without giving her an opportunity to defend herself, constituted treachery.

Concerning the damages awarded, the Court upheld the civil indemnity and moral damages but modified the actual damages to reflect only the expenses supported by receipts. The Court also awarded exemplary damages due to the presence of treachery.

The Court referenced Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), highlighting the elements and penalties for murder:

ART. 248. Murder. – Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, x x x.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the eyewitness identifications of the appellant as the gunman were credible and sufficient to convict him of murder, despite his defense of alibi. The court assessed the reliability of both out-of-court and in-court identifications.
What is the “totality of circumstances test”?	The “totality of circumstances test” is used to determine the admissibility of out-of-court identifications. It considers the witness’s opportunity to view the crime, their degree of attention, accuracy of prior descriptions, level of certainty, time between crime and identification, and any suggestiveness in the procedure.
How does the court view the defense of alibi?	The court views alibi as a weak defense, especially when faced with positive identification. To succeed, the accused must prove not only that they were elsewhere but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene.
What is the significance of treachery in this case?	Treachery is a qualifying circumstance that elevates the crime to murder. It involves employing means to ensure the crime’s execution without risk to the offender from the victim’s defense.
What types of damages were awarded in this case?	The court awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, actual damages (modified to include only receipted expenses), and exemplary damages due to the presence of treachery. The modification of the actual damages shows the weight of presenting evidence.
What happens if an out-of-court identification is flawed?	Even if an out-of-court identification is flawed, a subsequent positive in-court identification can cure the defect, provided the in-court identification is independent and credible. This places greater weight and importance in the witness’ in-court testimonies.
Can a cartographic sketch be used as evidence?	Yes, a cartographic sketch based on a witness’s description can be used as evidence. In this case, it led to the identification of the appellant.
What is the penalty for murder under the Revised Penal Code?	Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. The penalty to be applied depends on the presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Hernando underscores the significance of credible eyewitness testimony and the challenges in successfully asserting an alibi defense. It highlights the importance of rigorous standards in assessing the reliability of identifications and the need for concrete evidence to support claims of being elsewhere at the time of a crime. The ruling serves as a reminder of the weight given to positive identification in Philippine jurisprudence.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. REYNALDO HERNANDO Y AQUINO, G.R. No. 186493, November 25, 2009