G.R. No. 124128 November 18, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMAN TAGOLIMOT alias “OMEK”, APOLONIO ENORME, ELVIS FUNDAL, RODRIGO GARDOCE, ROBERTO SAYMAN alias “BERT”, JOSE IGNACIO alias “DODONG”, and alias “ROMY”, accused. RODRIGO GARDOCE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On April 29, 1991, at around 11:30 AM, Asia Brewery cashier Mary Ann Velayo and driver Ernesto Vasquez were on their way to a bank in General Santos City on a company truck carrying P135,000.00. A man (Roman Tagolimot) stood in the road, causing Vasquez to slow down. Tagolimot boarded the truck, pointed a gun at Vasquez, and was joined by Apolonio Enorme and Elvis Fundal. Velayo and Vasquez were forced to crouch. Enorme drove the truck, and Velayo surrendered the money and checks. The truck was driven to a dirt road in Polomolok, South Cotabato, where it stalled. Velayo and Vasquez were ordered out. Velayo noticed accused-appellant Rodrigo Gardose at the back of the vehicle. When ordered to run, Velayo heard someone shout, “Why did you allow them to run?” Enorme chased and fatally shot Vasquez. Fundal then shot Velayo, wounding her wrist. The robbers fled with the truck. Velayo was later treated at a hospital. The initial complaint charged robbery with homicide and slight illegal detention. It was amended to include Fundal and Gardose, and later Roberto Sayman, Jose Ignacio, and “Romy” based on witness statements. Tagolimot and “Romy” were not apprehended. Enorme died in prison. Fundal pleaded guilty in a plea bargain. The trial court found Rodrigo Gardose guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him, jointly and severally with Fundal, to pay damages. Gardose appealed, arguing Velayo failed to positively identify him and raising the defense of alibi and minority.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution eyewitness, Mary Ann Velayo, positively identified accused-appellant Rodrigo Gardose as one of the perpetrators of the crime.
2. Whether the defense of alibi and the claim of minority should be upheld.

RULING

1. Yes. The Supreme Court found that Mary Ann Velayo positively identified Rodrigo Gardose as the man she saw at the back of the truck during the incident. While her cross-examination revealed temporary hesitancy and statements like “I am not very sure,” her direct examination and subsequent clarification confirmed her identification. She pointed to Gardose in court on two occasions. The Court held that the conditions of visibility were good (noontime) and that it is natural for victims to remember their attackers. The entire testimony, not isolated inconsistencies, must be considered.
2. No. The defense of alibi failed. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove he was at another place at the time of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Gardose claimed he was three hours away by bus but failed to prove physical impossibility. His presence was established by Velayo’s identification and the testimony of prosecution witness Francisca Sumague, who saw Gardose with Fundal and others in Polomolok on the afternoon of the incident, counting money and burning papers. The claim of minority (being 17 years old at the time of the crime) was rejected as it was raised for the first time on appeal, supported only by an uncertified photocopy of a birth certificate, and is a question of fact not proper for appeal.
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision with the MODIFICATION that the offense should be designated simply as robbery with homicide, as the physical injuries inflicted on Velayo are absorbed in the complex crime of robbery with homicide.