G.R. No. 107106 November 24, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO JOSE, LIWAYWAY CARPIO, ABDUN SALAS, JR. (at large), accused, RODOLFO CARLINGGA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On September 22, 1981, housemaid Aurelia del Rosario was in her employers’ (the Nuñez couple) house in Caloocan City when she heard Fortunata Nuñez gasping for breath from the adjacent store bodega. As she moved to investigate, appellant Rodolfo Carlingga pointed an icepick at her, gagged her, and tied her hands. He then dragged her to the sala where she saw co-accused Liwayway Carpio. Aurelia was moved to different rooms while appellant and his companions ransacked the house, demanding the location of money and a gun. After the perpetrators fled, Aurelia discovered the lifeless body of Fortunata Nuñez. The autopsy revealed 29 icepick-like wounds. Manuel Nuñez later reported the loss of approximately P15,000 in cash and P45,000 worth of jewelry.
Appellant Carlingga denied involvement, claiming he was at his home in Pasig at the time, resting from his work as a tricycle driver. He asserted an alibi and claimed mere acquaintance with accused Liwayway Carpio. The trial court convicted him of robbery with homicide and imposed the death penalty, leading to this appeal where he challenges the credibility of eyewitness Aurelia del Rosario.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant based on the eyewitness testimony of Aurelia del Rosario, despite his defense of alibi and alleged inconsistencies in her testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Aurelia del Rosario’s credibility. Her positive identification of appellant as one of the perpetrators was clear and categorical, outweighing his weak defense of alibi. For alibi to prevail, an accused must prove not only presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Pasig is not so distant from Caloocan City as to preclude appellant’s presence.
The alleged inconsistencies in Aurelia’s testimony, concerning the sequence of events and specific locations within the house, were deemed minor and inconsequential. They did not relate to the core fact of appellant’s identity and participation. Such minor variances, given the lapse of time between the event and her court testimony, even enhance credibility by negating any suspicion of rehearsed narration. The Court found no ill motive for Aurelia, a stranger to appellant, to falsely implicate him. The constitutional prohibition against the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution was applied, as the crime preceded the re-imposition of capital punishment under Republic Act No. 7659 .