G.R. No. 121483 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused, ROMANO MANLAPAZ y MARIMLA, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . He is also ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Israel Lacson the sum of P3,500.00 for hospitalization expenses and P11,500.00 for burial and funeral expenses and the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity. [5] Hence, this appeal where the accused-appellant assigns the following error: THE COURT A QUO MANIFESTLY ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [6] Accused-appellant admits that he was a passenger of the jeep of the victim, Israel Lacson (LACSON) but denies that participated in the commission of the crime. He insists that when he boarded the jeep he sat himself at the back of the jeepney as there were already several passengers on board at that time. Then the man seated behind the driver ordered the driver to stop the jeep when they were in front of the battery shop; as soon as the driver stopped the jeep, he heard an explosion and he saw the driver fall down as a result of a gunshot fired by the man seated behind the driver. He then alighted from the jeep and ran away together with the other passengers. As soon as he arrived home, he told his mother about the incident. The police arrested him the next day and he was brought to the police station where he saw Ruel Lopez Dayrit (DAYRIT) for the first time. In support of his claim, accused-appellant argues that he was not clearly, convincingly and positively identified as the perpetrator of the crime charged. Prosecution witness DAYRIT did not have ample opportunity to see the faces of the alleged malefactors; and in fact did not actually see who fired the gun. Moreover, DAYRIT could not have positively identified him because he himself admitted that he was in shock after the incident occurred. The fact that he also failed to recall the caliber of the guns being carried by the robbers demonstrates his inability to recall the events that transpired that night. Consequently, his recollection of what actually occurred is necessarily tainted. Accused-appellant also claims that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a conspiracy in view of the unpersuasive, unreliable and incredible testimony of DAYRIT. A conspiracy is not presumed but must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. We resolve to affirm the judgment of conviction. Accused-appellant attacks the credibility of the prosecution witness, DAYRIT, and claims that his identification of accused-appellant was not positive. We have carefully gone over the records and find nothing in his account of the events that would show that his testimony suffers from incredibility. He testified as follows: FISCAL BUAN TO DAYRIT ON DIRECT EXAMINATION: Q: On May 18, 1992, around 10:00 oclock in the evening, where were you if you still recall? A: I was with Israel Lacso