G.R. No. 107746. July 28, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCELINO MORES y VILLANUEVA Alias “CHRISTOPHER”, RONNIE RACUMA and DANILO ZAMORA, accused, DANILO ZAMORA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed accusing Marcelino Mores, Ronnie Racuma, and Danilo Zamora of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. The case proceeded only against Mores and Zamora, as Racuma remained at large. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on the eyewitness account of Virgilio Castillo, who was at the Caltex gasoline station on September 9, 1991. Castillo testified that at around 2:00 AM, he met the three accused outside the station office. They warned him not to go inside. From a parked bus, he witnessed Zamora get an iron pipe, Mores break a beer bottle, and all three enter the office. He saw Racuma stab the nightguard, Alex Montemayor, with the broken bottle while Zamora and Mores pinned Montemayor down. Racuma then used the pipe to break a glass pad and open a cabinet, taking a plastic bedpan containing over P10,000.00. The accused then left. Wilfredo Alegre testified he saw three men, whose clothes were bloodstained and one carrying a bedpan, leave the station, and he identified Mores and Zamora. Cesar Gutierrez testified he later saw three men, including Mores and Zamora, dividing money, with blood-stained shirts. The bedpan was recovered. The autopsy confirmed Montemayor died from multiple stab wounds. Accused Mores admitted being present but claimed he was forced under threat. Accused Zamora denied participation and set up an alibi, claiming he was in another town attending to his wife’s childbirth. The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused. Only Danilo Zamora appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in giving credence to the testimony of eyewitness Virgilio Castillo despite alleged material inconsistencies in his sworn statements.
2. Whether the lower court erred in not giving credence to the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the alleged inconsistencies in Castillo’s sworn statements (dated September 14 and 18, 1991) pertained to whether he saw the accused divide the money, which was not a material detail to the elements of the crime. Inconsistencies on minor details do not impair credibility and may even enhance it by showing the testimony was not rehearsed. Castillo’s positive identification of Zamora’s participation was clear and consistent. On the second issue, the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Zamora failed to prove this impossibility. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Alegre and Gutierrez, who corroborated Castillo’s account and identified Zamora, were found credible. The Court upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court and the orders for indemnity.