GR 83694; (May, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 83694 ; May 31, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO PONCE alias TARCING/PERSING, et al., accused. ALFREDO PONCE, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The case involves a robbery with homicide at the house of Calixta Gepitacio in Kauswagan Dangcagan, Bukidnon, on April 30, 1976. The robbery was planned by Julian Ancis, who recruited several individuals, including appellant Alfredo Ponce and state witness Nestor Ricafort. The group, which also included Dionisio Alpuerto and Hermogenes Tagotongan, executed the plan in the evening. Ponce and Alpuerto entered the house first. During the robbery, Calixta Gepitacio was assaulted and forced to hand over P1,500. Her son, Cornelio, was stabbed and beaten, and her husband, Gaudencio, was fatally stabbed. The robbers fled, dividing the loot at a co-accused’s house. The trial court convicted Ponce, Alpuerto, and Tagotongan of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.
Ponce appealed, arguing the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of state witness Ricafort and in convicting him despite alleged inconsistencies and lack of evidence. He interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in Cagayan de Oro City looking for work at the time of the crime.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant Alfredo Ponce for the crime of robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of state witness Nestor Ricafort credible and sufficient to establish Ponce’s guilt. Ricafort’s account was detailed, consistent, and corroborated by the victim, Calixta Gepitacio. The Court held that the discharge of Ricafort to become a state witness was proper, as he appeared to be the most guilty among those arrested, and his testimony was essential and corroborated. Minor inconsistencies in his testimony pertained to trivial details and did not undermine its credibility regarding the central facts of the conspiracy and the execution of the crime.
The Court rejected Ponce’s alibi, emphasizing it is the weakest defense. To be credible, an alibi must demonstrate it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene. Ponce failed to prove this impossibility; his claim of being in Cagayan de Oro was uncorroborated and vague. His presence and active participation in the robbery, including giving the signal to enter and later discarding a weapon, were firmly established by positive identification. The Court modified the award of civil indemnity, ordering Ponce to pay P50,000 to the heirs of each victim. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed with this modification.