G.R. No. 108802 . July 12, 1994. ENGR. ISAGANI MERCADO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS

Petitioner Isagani Mercado was convicted of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Five prosecution witnesses testified that they and six others each gave P5,000 to Mercado on November 5, 1984, at 9:00 a.m., in Lumban, Laguna, based on his representation that he would secure overseas employment for them. They trusted him as a townmate and relative. For the total amount of P55,000, Mercado issued a single receipt signed in their presence. The promised employment abroad never materialized.
Mercado interposed an alibi, claiming he was confined at the Manila Sanitarium from November 5 to 9, 1984, having been admitted at 4:00 a.m. on November 5. He presented a hospital certification and a medical records employee who testified based on hospital reports. However, on cross-examination, the witness admitted the records did not indicate the time of admission. The trial court found the alibi unpersuasive, noting travel from Manila to Lumban took only about an hour and a half, and his condition did not preclude him from leaving the hospital.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Mercado’s conviction despite his alibi and alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. On the first assigned error, the Court found no major discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Their consistent positive identification of Mercado, whom they knew personally, was credible. Minor inconsistencies were deemed natural and did not impair their overall reliability. On the second error, Mercado’s alibi was supported only by his self-serving testimony. The hospital certification and witness did not prove it was impossible for him to be at the crime scene at 9:00 a.m., as the records lacked a specific time of admission. This could not overturn the overwhelming direct evidence against him. On the third error, the alleged conflict between the trial and appellate courts regarding his challenge to the receipt’s signature was more apparent than real. The appellate court explained that Mercado had questioned the superimposed text above the signature, not the signature itself, and he failed to cooperate with the NBI examination he requested. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding absent a showing they are contrary to the evidence, which Mercado failed to demonstrate.