G.R. No. 116059 July 23, 1998
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUEL CRISOSTOMO y CABANBAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Manuel Crisostomo was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union for the murder of Nartito Gavina and sentenced to reclusion perpetua with an indemnity of P50,000.00. The prosecution evidence, primarily from the victim’s parents Susana and Manuel Gavina, established that around midnight of June 21, 1992, while inside their house in Brgy. Aludaid, San Juan, La Union, they heard a gunshot from Nartito’s room. Susana looked out the window and, under bright moonlight from a distance of less than one meter, saw appellant running away from underneath their house armed with a gun. She later testified she saw appellant insert the gun barrel into a hole under the house and fire at Nartito. Manuel similarly saw appellant running away after the shot. They found Nartito dead with a gunshot wound to the head. Dr. Arturo Llavare’s autopsy concluded Nartito was shot at very close range (about six inches) while lying down. Appellant interposed an alibi, claiming he was at his residence in San Gabriel, La Union, at the time, a distance negotiable in twenty minutes by transportation or one hour on foot. He alleged Nartito had threatened him days prior after a confrontation over a carabao. His alibi was corroborated by his father but not by other defense witnesses. The trial court convicted based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of murder based on the alleged biased, conflicting, and forsworn testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in disregarding the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of Susana and Manuel Gavina were inconsequential and did not impair their credibility. Affidavits are generally subordinate to open court declarations, and minor lapses are expected from witnesses recounting traumatic events. Their positive identification of appellant as the person seen fleeing the crime scene immediately after the shooting was credible, given the bright moonlight and short distance. Appellant’s alibi was weak as he failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, the distance being only twenty minutes away by transportation. Alibi becomes less plausible when invoked by the accused and immediate relatives. The crime was murder qualified by treachery (alevosia), as the attack was sudden on an unarmed and defenseless victim lying down. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed.