G.R. No. 118967 ; July 14, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO DELA CRUZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Ernesto dela Cruz, was convicted of murder for the killing of Aurelio Goze on November 2, 1991, in Gattaran, Cagayan. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness testimony of the victim’s wife, Zenaida Goze. She testified that around 11:00 PM, two men forcibly took Aurelio from their house while appellant, whom she recognized as her husband’s second-degree cousin with whom he had a land dispute, waited outside. She then saw appellant and his companions shoot Aurelio with long firearms about thirty meters away from their house, which was illuminated by a gas lamp and moonlight. She immediately identified appellant to the police. The defense interposed alibi and denial, claiming appellant was sleeping in a military camp in another barangay at the time of the incident, awakened only by gunshots. He also pointed to military personnel as the perpetrators, supported by affidavits from two individuals, which the prosecution dismissed as coming from “perjured witnesses.”

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the credibility of the eyewitness identification and the weakness of the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of Zenaida Goze credible, positive, and categorical. She had a clear view of the appellant, whom she knew personally, from a short distance under sufficient illumination from a lamp and moonlight, with no obstructions. Her immediate report to the authorities bolstered her credibility. The Court emphasized that alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification. For alibi to prosper, the defendant must prove not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of his being at the crime scene. Appellant failed to do so, as the military camp was not so far as to preclude his presence at the crime scene. The claim that soldiers were the perpetrators, raised belatedly, was deemed an afterthought. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated as the attack was sudden and deliberate, rendering the victim defenseless. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing the civil indemnity to P50,000 and awarding P50,000 as moral damages, but deleted the exemplary damages and the restrictive condition on parole or pardon for lack of legal basis.