G.R. No. 124076. January 21, 1997.
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Gerry Sarabia, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On April 14, 1991, newspaper publisher Nesino P. Toling was shot and killed inside his office, the Panguil Bay Monitor, in Ozamiz City. An Information charged Gerry Sarabia and Nelson Verdida with Murder, but only Sarabia was apprehended and tried. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses. Security guard Elmo Galinato, stationed across the street, testified that he saw Sarabia, whom he recognized from prior encounters, follow Toling into the office, open the door, and fire three shots at the victim. He stated Sarabia returned moments later to fire additional shots before fleeing.
Secretary Marivic Cuamag, who was in Toling’s office just before the shooting, corroborated Sarabia’s presence. She testified to seeing a man matching Sarabia’s description standing at the office door shortly before she left. Upon hearing gunshots and returning, she found Toling dead. The autopsy confirmed the victim was shot from behind. The defense presented alibi witnesses, including Sarabia’s wife and a friend, who claimed he was at a different location attending a birthday party at the time of the crime.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Gerry Sarabia was the perpetrator of the murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitnesses Galinato and Cuamag to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish Sarabia’s guilt. Galinato had a clear view from his post and knew Sarabia from before the incident, making his identification reliable. Cuamag’s testimony placed Sarabia at the scene immediately prior to the shooting. Their collective accounts were deemed more credible than the defense of alibi, which the Court found weak and unsubstantiated. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, especially when the witnesses had no ill motive to falsely testify.
Regarding the penalty, the crime was committed before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659. The penalty for Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code was reclusion temporal maximum to death. Applying Article 64(1) of the same Code, as there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty imposed was the medium period, which is reclusion perpetua. The Court clarified that reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, and its imposition was correct. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in toto.