This is an appeal1 [Dated February 13, 1987; Original Records (O.R.), pp. 340-342.] from the Decision2 [Penned by Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong.] dated February 1, 1987, of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172, convicting appellant Elizalde Culala y Bognot of the crime of Robbery with Homicide in Criminal Case No. 4916-V-82; and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death,3 [Commuted to reclusion perpetua by virtue of the suspension of the imposition of death penalty under the 1987 Constitution. (See People vs. Redulosa, 255 SCRA 279, p. 286, citing: Resolution dated April 30, 1987 in Administrative Matter No. 87-5-3173-0.] as follows: Slxmis

Filed, on May 10, 1982 by Provincial Fiscal Pascual C. Kliatchko, the Information indicting the accused-appellant, alleges: Missdaa

Cash money amounting to	P100.00
Ohm meter tester amounting to	400.00
Tools and spare parts amounting to	500.00
One (1) bag amounting toSc	20.00
T O T A L	P1,020.00

With the accused pleading not guilty upon arraignment,6 [O.R. p. 37.] trial ensued.

The version of the prosecution as testified on by its lone eyewitness Juliana Celon-Simoy, mother of the victim, runs as follows: Xsc

At about 9:50 p.m. of March 14, 1982, Juliana Simoy went out to fetch her twenty-three (23) year old son, Eduardo C. Simoy, a radio and television technician.7 [Decision, Rollo, p. 42.] Proceeding to R. Delfin St., she saw, at a distance of fifteen (15) meters, in front of Interworld Steel Factory, two men whom she did not recognize as the area was quite dark.8 [Cross-examination of Juliana Simoy, June 18, 1984; T.S.N., p. 164.] One man was picking the left pocket of the other, at the same time pointing a knife at the back of the latter.9 [Decision, Rollo, p. 42.] The aggressor then grabbed the bag hanging on the left shoulder of the other man and thereafter, stabbed him at the back.10 [Ibid., October 8, 1982; T.S.N., p. 25.] Out of fear, Juliana Simoy sought cover at the gate of Skylark Plastic Corp., located on the road side.11 [Ibid., July 30, 1984; TSN, p. 171.] After accomplishing his evil deed, the culprit ran at the direction where Juliana was hiding. Nearing the gate of Skylark which was then illuminated, he slowed down and walked, giving Juliana an opportunity to see his face before, and as, he passed right in front of the said gate (at a distance of one (1) meter),12 [Ibid., pp. 174-175 and August 27, 1984, p. 178; Decision, Rollo, p. 42.] with the aid of the light emanating from an electric post. Thereafter, accused-appellant fled towards the Batimana Compound.13 [Ibid., May 21, 1984, p. 154.] Xlaw

As the workers of Interworld Steel started to come out and gather around the lifeless body in front of the factory, Juliana took a look at the victim. It was only then that she learned that the victim was her son, Eduardo Simoy. The bag belonging to Eduardo was later recovered at Batimana Compound. Missing from the same, was the Ohm meter of the victim worth P400.00 and cash of P100.00.14 [Decision, Rollo, p. 42.]

On March 16, 1982, Juliana Simoy positively identified Elizalde Culala in a police line-up as the person who robbed and killed her son, on the night of March 14, 1982.15 [Cross-examination of Juliana Simoy, June 13, 1984, T.S.N., p. 163.] Sclex

The prosecution introduced in evidence the extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellant admitting the commission of the crime, alleged to have been obtained in the presence and with the assistance of Atty. Celso E. Santamaria, Municipal Attorney of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, who testified that he apprised the accused of his constitutional rights.16 [Cross-examination of Atty. Celso Santamaria, May 8, 1995, T.S.N., p. 223.]

Accused-appellant, on the other hand, placed reliance on the defense of denial and alibi. He theorized that he could not have committed the crime because at the alleged time of its perpetration (around 9:00 p.m. of March 14, 1982) he was having a good time at a certain Bell’s Pub house in Monumento, where he stayed until the early morning of March 15, 1982.17 [Cross-examination of Elizalde Culala, November 2, 1983, T.S.N. at pp. 24 and 29.] He pointed out that the extra-judicial confession executed by him suffer from constitutional infirmities and consequently, inadmissible as evidence because it was extracted under duress, force and intimidation and was only countersigned later by the Municipal Attorney.18 [Re-direct Examiation of Elizalde Culala, January 18, 1984, T.S.N. p. 110-111.]

After trial, the court a quo came out with a judgment of conviction. Therefrom, appellant took this appeal, theorizing that: Sclaw

Well-settled to the point of being elementary is the doctrine that questions of fact are best resolved by the trial court. The factual findings of the trial court are to be upheld on appeal unless it is clearly shown that facts of substance had been overlooked or circumstances of significance have been disregarded.20 [People vs. Camayan, 245 SCRA 66, p. 74, citing: People vs. Ruelo, 237 SCRA 737 and People vs. Utinas, G.R. No. 105832, December 22, 1994.] In the case under consideration, the trial court gave credence to the testimony of eye-witness Juliana Simoy, who categorically identified the accused-appellant at the police station as the person who robbed and killed her son. She narrated, in part:

Juliana Simoy’s credibility is not diminished by her admission that she saw the appellant for the first time during the commission of the crime. On the contrary, it appears that she indeed had a clear view of the accused-appellant as he approached the gate where she was hiding. Pertinent portions of the unwavering testimony of the prosecution witness, state:

x x x"22 [Ibid., May 21, 1984, T.S.N., p. 155.]

"x x x

x x x

x x x"23 [Ibid., July, 20, 1984, T.S.N., pp. 174-175.]

So also, it bears stressing that a violent incident such as the one complained of may even serve as a catalyst to the witness’ memory. The face of Elizalde Culala must have been, in the very nature of things, forcefully impinged upon and etched into the memory of Juliana Simoy by the atrocity perpetrated before her eyes.24 [People vs. De la Cruz, G. R. No. 111704, March 17, 1999; citing: People vs. Campa, 230 SCRA 431, 442.]

With respect to the alibi theorized upon by accused-appellant, the Court believes, and so rules, that the same cannot hold against the positive identification by Juliana Simoy of the appellant as the culprit. Basic is the rule that alibi which is easy to concoct, cannot prevail over the positive identification by the witnesses who were not shown to have been ill-motivated to testify against the accused-appellant.25 [People vs. Lacatan, G.R. No. 121532, September 7, 1998, 295 SCRA 203.] Thus, in the absence of proof of improper motive on the part of Juliana Simoy to implicate accused-appellant in the commission of the malefaction sued upon, there is no cause or ground for not giving due weight and probative value to her testimony. Manikan

On the admissibility of subject extra-judicial confession of accused-appellant, it is worthy to note that during the custodial investigation he was assisted by Atty. Celso E. Santamaria, Municipal Attorney of Valenzuela, Metro Manila. In People vs. Bandula,26 [232 SCRA 566.] it was held that a Municipal Attorney cannot be an independent counsel as required by the Constitution.27 [Sec.12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of a counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.] As a legal officer of the municipality, he provides legal assistance and support to the mayor and the municipality in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people, including the maintenance of peace and order. It is therefore seriously doubted whether he can effectively undertake the defense of the accused without running into conflict of interests. He is no better than a fiscal or a prosecutor who cannot represent the accused during custodial investigations.28 [People vs. Bandula, supra, p. 576, citing: People v. Matos-Viduya, 189 SCRA 403.] Consequently, for being violative of the Constitution, the extrajudicial confession of accused-appellant is inadmissible. Oldmiso

But even without the accused-appellant’s extra-judicial confession, the judgment of conviction under scrutiny is affirmable as the testimonial and documentary evidence on record have established the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Absent the inadmissible extrajudicial confession of accused appellant, the aggravating circumstance of treachery, primarily anchored on the narration by accused-appellant as to how he attacked the deceased, cannot be considered. Anyway, with or without treachery aggravating the crime, the imposable penalty would still be reclusion perpetua, considering that the crime happened on March 14, 1982. Section 19 (1) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that "(a)ny death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua." Ncm

While Republic Act No. 7659, which reimposed the death penalty for certain heinous crimes including robbery with homicide, was thereafter passed and took effect on December 31, 1993, such law, being penal in nature, cannot have retrospective effect.29 [People vs. Derilo, et al, 271 SCRA 633, 662, April 18, 1997; People vs. Recones, et al., G.R. No. 129535, July 20, 1999; People vs. Patalin, et al., G.R. No. 125539, July 27, 1999.]

Following prevailing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity should be increased to Fifty Thousand (P50,000) Pesos.30 [People vs. Tabones, G.R. No. 129695, March 17, 1999.] However, the indemnity for the unrecovered Ohm meter should only be P400.00, the value thereof alleged and proven.

All things studiedly considered, and viewed in proper perspective, the mind of the court can rest easy on a finding of accused-appellant’s guilt. Ncmmis

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment in Criminal Case No. 4916-v-82 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, as above ratiocinated, and the accused-appellant, Elizalde Culala y Bognot, is declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and is hereby sentenced therefor to the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Eduardo C. Simoy in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as indemnity ex delicto, P400.00 for the unrecovered Ohm Meter and P100.00 for the cash taken from the deceased. Costs against accused-appellant.

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.