FACTS:

Rafael D. Torres Jr. was charged with murder for shooting and killing Luisito Angeles on December 16, 1987. The prosecution presented the testimony of witness Lincoln Leyretana, who witnessed the accused shoot the victim twice inside a passenger jeepney and two more times after alighting from the vehicle. Leyretana and other passengers brought the victim to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Leyretana identified the accused when the police apprehended him. The accused, however, escaped and was only arrested on December 13, 1995.

The defense interposed alibi, claiming that the accused was at work in Pasig at the time of the incident. The trial court rejected the defense's arguments and gave weight to Leyretana's testimony. As a result, the accused was found guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, raising several assignment of errors, including lack of positive identification, failure to give credence to alibi, lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and improper appreciation of qualifying aggravating circumstances and damages. The Court will now determine the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence regarding the identification of the accused as the author of the crime.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the identification made by the eyewitness was credible.

2. Whether there was any impermissible suggestion in the identification procedure.

3. Whether the identification made by the witness during the police lineup was admissible.

4. Whether the assistance of counsel is essential during a police lineup.

5. Whether the trial court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto.

6. Whether the awards of P95,500 as actual damages and P20,000 as moral damages are supported by evidence.

7. Whether the award of P150,000 for loss of earning capacity is proper.

RULING:

1. The Court found no reason to reverse or modify the trial court's factual finding on the credibility of the eyewitness. The eyewitness firmly and consistently identified the appellant as the culprit and his identification was corroborated by the circumstances of the incident. The minor inconsistencies in his testimony did not materially affect the substance of his identification.

2. The Court found no impermissible suggestion in the identification procedure. While the police officers fetched the eyewitness to confirm the identity of the suspect, there was no evidence that they coached or suggested the appellant as the culprit. The eyewitness voluntarily and independently pointed to the appellant as the suspect.

3. The identification made by the witness during the police lineup was admissible. The court held that there was no impermissible suggestion from the law enforcers and that there was no showing of any undue motive on the part of the police officers to incriminate the appellant. It was the witness himself who pointed out the culprit to them. Thus, the identification was found to be valid.

4. The assistance of counsel is not essential during a police lineup. The court held that the stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to stand in a police lineup is outside the mantle of protection of the right to counsel because it involves a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and is purely investigatory in nature. An uncounselled identification at the police lineup does not preclude the admissibility of an in-court identification.

5. The trial court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.

6. The awards of P95,500 as actual damages and P20,000 as moral damages are upheld as they were supported by evidence.

7. The award of P150,000 for loss of earning capacity is modified. The computation for this award should be based on the income at the time of death and the probable life expectancy of the victim. The necessary living expenses should also be deducted. The correct amount of indemnity for the lost earnings of the deceased in the present case is P3,600,000.

PRINCIPLES:

• The Supreme Court accords great respect to the factual conclusions of trial courts, particularly their assessment of witness credibility.

• Due process demands that the procedure for the identification of criminal suspects be free from impermissible suggestion.

• The corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity of in-court identification during the trial.

• Minor and insignificant inconsistencies in the testimony of an eyewitness do not necessarily affect the credibility of their identification.

• The identification made during a police lineup is admissible if there was no impermissible suggestion from the law enforcers and no motive to incriminate the appellant was shown.

• The assistance of counsel is not essential during a police lineup as it falls outside the right to counsel during an investigation.

• Alibi is a weak defense that cannot prevail over positive identification by a credible witness.

• Treachery is present when the attack is executed in such a manner as to ensure the offender's safety from any defense or retaliatory act of the offended party.

• Evident premeditation requires the presence of the elements of time, an act manifestly indicating the accused's determination to commit the crime, and a lapse of time between the determination and the execution sufficient to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of the act.

• The proper penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua if there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

• The amount of indemnity for loss of earning capacity is based on the income at the time of death and the probable life expectancy of the victim, minus necessary living expenses.

• Indemnity ex delicto can be awarded without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.

• Awards for actual damages and moral damages must be supported by evidence.