GR 172869; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172869; July 28, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. DONATO BULASAG y ARELLANO alias “DONG”, Appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Donato Bulasag, was charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The prosecution established that on July 27, 2000, three masked men entered the house of Estelita Bascuguin. The victim’s eight-year-old son, Michael, testified that one intruder, whom he identified as the appellant, was armed with a gun. The appellant hogtied Michael and demanded money from Estelita, threatening to kill the child if she refused. After Estelita handed over cash, the appellant shot her, and a companion stabbed her, causing her death. Lydia Siervo, the victim’s sister, testified that the appellant had previously threatened Estelita after she refused to lend him money.
The appellant interposed the defense of alibi and denial. He claimed he was at a birthday celebration and later at his uncle’s house drinking before being brought home by his brother, where he slept. His wife corroborated his account, testifying he was home and drunk at the time of the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellant, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the appellant for the crime of robbery with homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the sufficiency of evidence establishing all elements of robbery with homicide and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The Court found the elements present: (1) the taking of personal property with intent to gain, (2) through violence or intimidation, and (3) the killing was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. Michael’s positive identification of the appellant as one of the perpetrators was clear and credible. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a child witness, when shown to be coherent and consistent, is accorded full weight and credit.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. The appellant failed to meet this burden, as his own testimony placed him at his own house, which was barely three meters away from the victim’s house, making his presence at the crime scene entirely possible. Denial, being inherently weak, cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts, which are accorded great respect on appeal.