PEOPLE V. GALLEGO (REMEDIAL)

In People v. Teehankee, we explained the procedure for OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION and the test to determine the admissibility of such identification, viz:

"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 cafe with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographers are shown to the witness to identify suspect. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect form a group of persons lined up for the purpose.

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:

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.

Using the Totality of Circumstances Test, we find that the identification of Gallego as Lamata's assailant through a show-up is credible.

Gallego is a complete stranger to the witnesses. no ill-motive can be ascribed against them to falsely testify against him. Absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for them to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, as their testimonies are thus worthy of full faith and credit.

In light of the positive identification of Gallego as Lamata's assailant, the accused's defense of denial and alibi must fail. Time and again, this Court has ruled that POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED will prevail over the DEFENSE OF DENIAL AND ALIBI. Moreover, for the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. This, the accused failed to do so. A borne out by the testimonies of the defense witnesses, Gallego's house (where Gallego supposedly was at the time Lamata was stabbed) was only about 3 to 4 kilometers from the scene of the crime - a distance which by motorcycle could be negotiated in 10 minutes.