G.R. No. 103805 May 17, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Reynaldo Kyamko, alias “Dodon,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Reynaldo Kyamko was charged with Murder in an Information filed on January 18, 1989. After his arraignment and plea of not guilty, the prosecution filed a Motion For Leave To Amend Information to allege that the appellant is a recidivist by virtue of two prior final convictions for Frustrated Murder and Frustrated Homicide. The trial court granted the motion over the accused’s objection. The prosecution’s evidence established that on May 2, 1988, at about 4:00 a.m., eyewitness Eleuterio Rabor, together with Julito Fabular, saw appellant stab the victim, Epifanio Ferrer, who was sleeping while sitting down, hitting him on the left side of the neck. Rabor reported the incident to the victim’s mother. Dr. Alfredo Soberano conducted a post-mortem examination and testified that the neck wound was fatal, the victim was probably stabbed from behind, and there were no defensive wounds. The defense presented an alibi, claiming that on the evening of May 1, 1988, the appellant was assaulted by the victim’s brother and others, after which he and his cousin boarded a bus to Cebu City, arriving past 2:00 a.m. on May 2, and was examined by a doctor at around 7:00 a.m. that same day. The trial court found the appellant guilty of Murder, appreciating the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimony of prosecution witness Eleuterio Rabor.
2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the accused-appellant’s defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Rabor’s credibility, noting that he testified in a straightforward, sincere, and candid manner, and that his positive identification of the appellant was reliable. The Court found no merit in the challenges to Rabor’s conduct after the incident or the non-presentation of his companion, Julito Fabular, as a witness. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible eyewitness. Furthermore, the appellant failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, as the travel time from the crime scene to Cebu City was not an insurmountable distance. The Court also affirmed the trial court’s appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, resulting in the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua.