G.R. No. 120642 . July 2, 1999.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RONNIE P. REYES and NESTOR I. PAGAL, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Ronnie Reyes and Nestor Pagal were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City of the special complex crime of robbery in band with homicide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The information alleged that on December 30, 1992, in Cordon, Isabela, the appellants, together with three unidentified accomplices, armed with firearms, with intent to gain and by means of violence and intimidation, took a chainsaw and two cavans of palay belonging to spouses Alfredo and Felicidad Macadaeg. On the occasion of the robbery, and to enable them to take the items, they shot and killed Alfredo Macadaeg. The appellants pleaded not guilty, while their three co-accused remained at large.
The prosecution presented Felicidad David Macadaeg (the victim’s wife), Reynaldo Macadaeg (their 14-year-old son), and PO3 Jimmy Cabalo. Their testimonies established that around 6:00 p.m. on December 30, 1992, Alfredo Macadaeg was shot in his kitchen. After the shooting, four men barged into the house. Felicidad recognized appellant Ronnie Reyes, and Reynaldo identified appellant Nestor Pagal. Reyes pointed a gun at Felicidad, while Pagal pointed a gun at Reynaldo. Two other men demanded the chainsaw, found it upstairs, and took it along with two sacks of palay. Five men total were involved. The family reported the incident to the barangay captain and then the police. Felicidad and Reynaldo executed sworn statements identifying the appellants thirteen days after the incident, explaining they were familiar with them as frequent visitors and, in Reyes’s case, as a godparent to their child.
The defense consisted of alibi. Appellant Reyes claimed he was in San Benigno, Aglipay, Quirino, attending a birthday celebration and drinking from the afternoon until evening of December 30, 1992. He denied knowing Pagal prior to their detention. Appellant Pagal claimed he was in Calimutoc, Nayon Lamut, Ifugao, attending a church rehearsal and Christmas program from 2:00 p.m. until midnight on that day. Both presented witnesses to corroborate their alibis.
The trial court found the prosecution witnesses credible and convicted the appellants.

ISSUE

The fundamental issue is the credibility of witnesses, specifically whether the trial court erred in giving full weight to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Felicidad and Reynaldo Macadaeg, disregarding the defense of alibi, and finding the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery in band with homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great respect, as it had the direct opportunity to observe their demeanor. No compelling reason was found to overturn its findings. The testimonies of Felicidad and Reynaldo were clear, consistent, and credible. Their delay of thirteen days in identifying the appellants to the police was satisfactorily explained by their initial fright and trauma, and does not impair their credibility. Their familiarity with the appellants (Reyes as a frequent visitor and godfather, and Pagal as a visitor two days prior) bolstered the reliability of their identification.
The defense of alibi was properly rejected. For alibi to prevail, the accused must prove not only that they were elsewhere when the crime occurred but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. Appellants failed to prove such physical impossibility. The crime occurred in Wigan, Cordon, Isabela. Reyes claimed to be in San Benigno, Aglipay, Quirino, and Pagal in Calimutoc, Nayon Lamut, Ifugao. The distances from these locations to the crime scene were not so great as to preclude their presence. Alibi is inherently weak and easily fabricated.
The crime committed was the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by the aggravating circumstance of band, as more than three armed malefactors acted together. The killing of Alfredo Macadaeg was committed on the occasion of the robbery, as the shooting enabled the taking of the chainsaw and palay. The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. As there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty imposed by the trial court, reclusion perpetua, was correct.
The Court modified the award of damages. The civil indemnity for death was increased to P50,000.00. The award of P30,400.00 as actual damages was deleted for lack of evidentiary basis, but temperate damages of P25,000.00 were awarded in its place. The award of P500,000.00 as compensatory damages (for loss of earning capacity) was also deleted for lack of sufficient factual basis. Moral damages of P50,000.00 were awarded to the victim’s heirs.