1.

People of the Philippines vs Edwin Aleman GR 181539 By: Roman Almalbis Facts: Edwin Aleman was charged with the special complex crime crime of robbery with homicide. The accused conspired and mutually helped with another unidentified person, robbed and killed Mr. Ramon Jaime Birosel while the victim was inside his car talking over his cellphone. The prosecution established the cause of death of the victim shown in the medico-legal report. The case relied on sole-eyewitness account of Mark Aldovar, a 14-yr old deaf mute. During trial, a licensed sign language interpreter assisted him in his testimony. He communicated- the situation of the victim who had just boarded his car; the respective positions of accused and his still unidentified cohort vis--vis the victim; accused knock on the window of the victims car and the sudden series of stabs accused inflicted upon the victim; the taking of the victims various personal properties; accused walk away from the crime scene; and, the revelation of accused identity when he finally removed the bonnet that covered his face. However, accused interposed denial and alibi. He was twice made to join a police line-up and thereafter was given a spot report as the alleged suspect and turned over to police custody. He stated that witness failed to identify him during police line-up. RTC rejected the defenses of the accused but viewed the prosecution's evidence favorably, particularly the eyewitness testimony as simple and credible and his positive identification. On appeal, accused aimed at discrediting the witness. He questioned the qualification of Mark as witness being deafmute and failure to identify him as perpetrator during the line-up. CA denied the appeal and affirmed with RTC that prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of robbery with homicide. Issues: 1. W/N Mark, a deaf-mute, can be a competent witness? 2. W/N the non-identification of accused in police line-up would prejudice the case? Held: 1. Yes. The mere fact that Mark is a deaf-mute does not render him unqualified to be a witness. The rule is that all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. In this case, he was able to communicate through drawing and sketches in open court to show the relative position of things and persons as he perceived like a normal person. Thus, a deaf-mute is competent to be a witness so long as he has the faculty to make observations and he can make those observations known to others. RTC and CA saw no improper motive, which would impel Mark to testify falsely against the accused. 2. No. There is no law stating that a police line-up is essential to proper identification. What matters is that the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime be made by the witness in open court. But the records show that Mark identified accused-appellant as the robber-killer of the victim in a police line-up and, more importantly, in open court in the course of Marks testimony. Moreover, the settled rule is that the positive and credible testimony of a single witness is sufficient to secure the conviction of an accused. The Supreme Court denied the appeal of accused-appellant. July 24, 2013