4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly inside the court room and that Romero had not seen him before. However, there is nothing in law and jurisprudence which requires, as a condition sine qua non for the positive identification by a prosecution witness of a felon, that witness must first know the latter personally.[21] The fact that Romero never saw Atis before the crime was committed does not detract from the credibility and reliability of Romero's testimony. Oscar Conde insists that the delay of Romero in reporting the incident makes his testimony unworthy of credence. It is however well settled in jurisprudence that delay in divulging the names of perpetrators of a crime, if sufficiently explained, does not impair the credibility of the witness and his testimony.[22] Likewise, credibility is not affected by the initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information.[23] It is not uncommon for witnesses to a crime to show some reluctance about getting involved in a criminal case as, in fact, the natural reticence of most people to get involved is of judicial notice.[24] Romero categorically identified both Oscar Conde and Allan Atis as two of the perpetrators of the crime. Appellants failed to adduce any improper motive on his part which would motivate him to implicate them in the said crime. Absent such motive, the testimony Romero should be accorded full faith and credence as the testimony of a disinterested party who only wants to see justice upheld.[25] The two appellants interposed the negative defenses of alibi and denial. But as held in several cases, these defenses cannot overcome the straightforward testimony and the positive identification made by a prosecution witness.[26] We now turn to the appellant's vehement assertion that they have been illegally arrested. The records of the case will show that the arrests of the appellants came after the lapse of 5 days from the time they were seen committing the crime. At the time they were arrested, the police were not armed with any warrants for their arrests. Section 5 of Rule 113, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure[27] enumerates the instances when an arrest can be made without warrant, namely: (a) When, in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. None of the above circumstances is present in this case. Appellants were merely walking along Tandang Sora Avenue and were not committing any crime. Neither can it be said that the crime had just been committed. Five days had already passed from the time of the robbery with homicide. It cannot also be said that the arresting officers had probable cause based on personal knowledge. PO3 Sevillano admitted that they https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52087 5/10