G.R. No. L-69543 June 14, 1990
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Romeo Pacia y Geron, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The victim, Araceli Vergara, was found dead in a banana plantation on September 28, 1981, a day after she went missing while waiting for her mother near a bridge. A post-mortem examination revealed she died from massive hemorrhage due to a lacerated head wound and an incised neck wound. Her personal belongings, including jewelry and a wallet, were missing. Prosecution witnesses Benito Cabanez and Epifanio Capili testified that on the morning of her disappearance, they saw accused-appellant Romeo Pacia dragging a person matching Araceli’s description into a bushy area. Capili specifically testified to seeing Pacia slash the victim’s neck with a knife. The prosecution also established a motive, showing that Pacia had cohabited with Araceli’s sister and that Araceli opposed the relationship, leading Pacia to previously threaten her life.
The defense interposed an alibi, claiming Pacia was at the house of Barangay Captain Guillermo Clandria from 6:00 a.m. onward on the date of the crime, feeding and bathing fighting cocks before leaving for a cockpit at 8:30 a.m. The defense suggested the prosecution witnesses were biased due to business rivalry and personal grievances. The trial court convicted Pacia of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The defense of alibi must be rejected as it was not physically impossible for Pacia to have been at the crime scene. The Barangay Captain’s house was only about one hundred meters from Pacia’s own home, and the timeline presented did not conclusively negate his presence at the bridge area around 7:30 a.m. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses. The Court found no merit in the claim that the witnesses’ initial reluctance to report the crime undermined their credibility. Such reluctance, out of fear, is common and does not invalidate their testimonies, which were detailed and consistent with the medical findings. The fact that a different judge penned the decision than the one who heard some testimonies is immaterial, as the decision was based on a careful study of the entire record. The civil indemnity was increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).