GR 121780; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121780; March 17, 2000
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMON SUMALDE @ “WIL CENIZAL, EDGAR MACARSE, BERNARDO PACIFICO @ “JUL” (Dismissed), and JOHN DOE, accused, EDGAR MACARSE, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On August 10, 1990, a passenger jeepney plying the Iloilo City-Janiuay route was held up in Cabatuan, Iloilo. Eyewitnesses, conductor Joel Binayas and dispatcher Enrico Adelantar, testified that accused-appellant Edgar Macarse was among five men who boarded the jeepney and announced the robbery. The robbers, armed with revolvers and a knife, divested the passengers of cash and valuables. During the incident, the driver, Gerry Puniel, was shot and killed by one of the robbers, Ramon Sumalde. Macarse was specifically identified as the one who took the conductor’s collection of P500. Only Macarse was arrested and tried.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Macarse was at home due to a prior shotgun wound, with visitors during the time of the crime. He also presented police and barangay clearances to attest to his good moral standing. The trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible, convicting Macarse of Highway Robbery with Homicide under P.D. No. 532 and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, plus ordering him to pay damages to the victim’s heirs.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Edgar Macarse of Highway Robbery with Homicide based on the identification by the prosecution witnesses and in rejecting his defense of alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification of the accused by two eyewitnesses, who had a clear and unobstructed view of him during the commission of the crime, prevails over his defense of alibi. The Court found no improper motive for the witnesses to falsely testify against him. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot stand against positive identification, especially as Macarse failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The defense’s presented clearances do not negate the commission of the crime.
The Court, however, modified the awarded damages. Following prevailing jurisprudence, the award for moral damages was increased to P50,000. The computation for loss of earning capacity was also rectified using the formula from Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals: Net Earning Capacity = [2/3 x (80 – age at death)] x (Gross Annual Income – Necessary Living Expenses). With the victim being 24 years old and earning at least P100 daily (P24,000 annually), and deducting 50% for living expenses, the unearned income was correctly computed at P447,960. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was thus AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS regarding the amounts of damages.