G.R. No. 132481 ; August 14, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO SALVADOR and JOHN DOE, accused, ROBERTO SALVADOR, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On June 5, 1996, in Quezon, Nueva Ecija, Florencio Valeroso was shot and killed. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of his wife Eva and daughter Maria Theresa, states that while the family was walking home between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m., they were approached by two men wearing baseball caps and “Good morning” towelettes. After an initial exchange, one man returned from behind, greeted them, and then shot Florencio multiple times. Eva pleaded and held the assailant’s hand, causing his hat to fall off, which allowed her and Maria Theresa to identify him as accused-appellant Roberto Salvador. Salvador then struck Eva on the head with his gun before fleeing. The defense presented an alibi, claiming that at the time of the incident, Salvador, a Bantay Bayan member, was with SPO4 Abraham Fronda and others at a visitorial meeting and birthday celebration in a barangay about five kilometers away, from 5:00 p.m. until they left at 7:00 p.m. The Regional Trial Court found Roberto Salvador guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. He appealed, questioning the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused based solely on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the identity of the assailant.
2. Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty. The Court held that the trial court did not err. It found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Eva and Maria Theresa Valeroso credible and sufficient to establish accused-appellant’s identity as the assailant. The Court rejected the challenge to the credibility of the child witness, Maria Theresa, stating that a child of seven can be a competent witness if capable of perceiving and relating facts truthfully, and that the traumatic experience of witnessing her father’s killing made her recollection clear and precise. The Court also found Eva’s explanation for her delayed reporting of the assailant’s identity—fear because she often saw Salvador accompanied by policemen—to be satisfactory. The defense of alibi was rejected as weak and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, and could not prevail over the positive identification by the eyewitnesses. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present as the attack was sudden and from behind, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The penalty was reduced from death to reclusion perpetua in accordance with prevailing law. The Court also modified the damages, ordering accused-appellant to pay the heirs of the victim ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 for moral damages, and ₱30,000.00 for actual damages.