G.R. No. 119380. August 19, 1999.
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Federico Lopez @ Amboy Lopez, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of November 15, 1991, in Barangay Nancalabasaan, Umingan, Pangasinan, Rogelio Seldera, his 11-year-old son Mario Seldera, and their cousin Rodolfo Padapat were walking single file along a narrow trail after working in a ricefield. Accused-appellant Federico Lopez, armed with a shotgun and accompanied by an unarmed dark-complexioned man, appeared and, without a word, fired at them. All three victims fell face down. The companion rolled the bodies over with his foot before they left. Mario, though wounded in the back, survived. He immediately reported the incident to his uncle and then to the barangay captain and police. Mario positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant, recognizing him by the bright moonlight and because accused-appellant frequented their house to play cards with his father and Mario bought cigarettes from his store. Dr. Thelma Busto conducted autopsies, finding Rogelio died from multiple gunshot wounds to the head, neck, and chest, and Rodolfo from a gunshot wound to the head. Accused-appellant interposed alibi, claiming he was at a drinking party in another barangay from 5:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Defense witnesses Daniel Fortunato and Mario Sonaco corroborated his presence but admitted on cross-examination that the crime scene was only 1.5 to 2 kilometers away, traversable in 11 to 30 minutes, and that accused-appellant could have slipped out. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of two counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder.
ISSUE
The main issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the positive identification by the eyewitness versus the defense of alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Mario Seldera, who had no ill motive to testify falsely and knew accused-appellant well, prevails over the weak defense of alibi. For alibi to succeed, the accused must prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Here, the distance was merely 1.5 to 2 kilometers, which could be negotiated in a short time, making his presence at the crime scene possible. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present as the attack was sudden and from behind, giving the victims no opportunity to defend themselves. Evident premeditation was not proven. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing the indemnity for each death to P50,000.00 and awarding moral and exemplary damages, and actual damages for hospitalization expenses supported by receipts.