GR 122858; (February, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122858 February 28, 2001
BIEN D. SEVALLE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Bien Sevalle was charged with murder for the killing of Angelito Balbuena on December 17, 1986, in Taguig, Metro Manila. The prosecution’s principal witness, Rosemarie Santos-Balbuena, testified that while walking home at night, she saw Sevalle, Rusty Mendiola, and two other men beating a person. She witnessed Mendiola stab the victim and then heard a gunshot, seeing Sevalle pointing a gun at the victim. Frightened, she took a different route home. Later, she learned from a relative that the victim was her brother-in-law, Angelito Balbuena. The medico-legal report detailed multiple fatal stab and gunshot wounds. The defense presented alibi, claiming Sevalle was elsewhere, and attacked the witness’s credibility for not immediately naming the assailants to the investigating police.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the witness’s delayed identification and the defense of alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide, modifying the penalty and awarding moral damages. The Court found the testimony of Rosemarie Santos-Balbuena credible and sufficient for conviction. She had no ill motive to falsely testify and provided a clear, consistent, and spontaneous account of the incident, positively identifying Sevalle as a participant. The delay in revealing the perpetrators’ names to the police was sufficiently explained by the witnesses’ well-founded fear, as two brothers of the victim were killed shortly after the incident, allegedly by members of the local police. This fear justified the initial hesitation and did not impair her credibility.
The defense of alibi was rightly rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Sevalle failed to establish this impossibility. His alibi, supported only by his wife’s testimony, was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by a credible eyewitness. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. Consequently, the petitioner’s guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court, however, found the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation not proven, warranting conviction for the lesser crime of homicide.