G.R. No. 114740 February 15, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO GALAM, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On June 10, 1989, around 11:00 PM in Brooke’s Point, Palawan, Jose Medina was walking to a store when he chanced upon appellant Rogelio Galam and another man. Medina noticed appellant carrying a long object wrapped in a jacket under his armpit, which he presumed was a firearm. Upon reaching the store, appellant also entered. Suddenly, five gunshots rang out. Medina saw appellant pointing a gun at the victim, Roberto Balasanos, who was hit. The scene was illuminated by a fluorescent lamp, and Medina was approximately five meters from the victim and ten meters from appellant during the shooting. The victim died from multiple gunshot wounds. Appellant was charged with Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation.
At trial, the prosecution presented Medina as an eyewitness and a medical expert. The defense invoked alibi, claiming appellant was eight kilometers away, tending to a sick child with a faith healer and the child’s mother. The trial court convicted appellant of Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages. Appellant appealed, challenging the eyewitness identification, the rejection of his alibi, and the presence of qualifying circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant of Murder based on the eyewitness account and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the damages. The Court upheld the credibility of eyewitness Jose Medina. His positive identification of appellant as the gunman was deemed credible and sufficient for conviction. He had a clear view of the incident under adequate illumination from a fluorescent lamp and was at a proximate distance. His testimony that he saw appellant carrying a concealed long object before the shooting and then pointing and firing a gun at the victim was consistent and straightforward. The Court ruled that alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by a credible witness. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Appellant failed to prove this impossibility, as the distance of eight kilometers was not insurmountable.
Regarding the qualifying circumstances, the Court found that treachery was duly proven. The attack was sudden and unexpected, employing means that ensured the execution without risk to appellant. The victim was unarmed and unable to defend himself. However, the Court found no basis for the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, as the prosecution failed to prove the elements of planning and sufficient time for reflection. Consequently, the crime was properly qualified as Murder by treachery alone. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court modified the damages, awarding P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral damages, but deleted the exemplary damages for lack of legal basis.