G.R. No. 124829 April 21, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GREGORIO TULOP @ “Boy Tulop,” SALVADOR BALDEVIANO, RENY MONDEJAR, JESSIE PINATUBO, @ “Bisaya,” EDUARDO SENIA @ “Erning Pula,” and ERNESTO TEJADA, accused, GREGORIO TULOP @ “Boy Tulop,” appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging Gregorio Tulop, Salvador Baldeviano, and four others (at large) with the murder of Sesenando Sandoval on July 5, 1992, in Orion, Bataan. Only Tulop and Baldeviano were arraigned, pleading not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted both of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Tulop appealed; Baldeviano did not. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the eyewitness account of Rowena Sandoval, the victim’s daughter. She testified that around 11:00 p.m. on July 5, 1992, appellant Tulop and his co-accused forcibly dragged her father from their house. From a window about four arms-length away, she saw Tulop hack her father with a “panlabra” (big bolo) and Baldeviano stab him with a fan knife, while four other armed accused surrounded them and took turns attacking him. The defense of appellant Tulop was alibi, corroborated by two witnesses. He claimed he was at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, from July 3 to July 7, 1992, assisting a friend and seeking reinstatement in the military service.

ISSUE

The principal issue is the credibility of witnesses, specifically whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant based on the lone testimony of the complainant eyewitness and in not crediting the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect, as it had the opportunity to observe their demeanor. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s conclusion that Rowena Sandoval’s testimony was straightforward, guileless, and credible. Her positive identification of the appellant as one of the assailants was clear and consistent. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible eyewitness. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene. Appellant failed to prove the physical impossibility, as Camp Aguinaldo is not so far from Orion, Bataan, as to preclude his presence at the crime scene. The Court also upheld the finding of treachery, as the attack was sudden and without warning, ensuring the victim’s defenselessness. The Court reiterated that the credible and positive testimony of a single witness is sufficient for conviction, as evidence is assessed by quality, not quantity.