G.R. No. 126932. November 19, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PASCUA GALLADAN Y BUNAY, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of June 12, 1995, Sgt. Moreno Bernardo, SPO4 Donato Legasi, Sgt. Apolinario Galladan, and SPO3 Ramirez Era attended a wake in Makati City. Upon learning that SPO4 Pascua Galladan was nearby, the group hastily left to avoid a confrontation due to a long-standing grudge between SPO4 Galladan and Sgt. Galladan. While walking away, SPO4 Pascua Galladan suddenly appeared and shot Sgt. Galladan in the forehead. Sgt. Bernardo and SPO4 Legasi dropped to the ground; three more shots were fired, with a bullet hitting Sgt. Bernardo’s thigh. Sgt. Galladan died at the scene.
The defense presented an alibi, with accused-appellant SPO4 Galladan claiming he was at his daughter’s house in a neighboring barangay at the time and left for Baguio the next morning. The trial court convicted him of murder, finding treachery in the sudden attack on an unprepared victim fleeing to avoid trouble. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay damages. Accused-appellant appealed, challenging the trial court’s credence given to the prosecution’s evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of murder based on the prosecution’s evidence and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s factual findings, including the positive identification of the accused by two prosecution witnesses (Sgt. Bernardo and SPO4 Legasi), are accorded great respect and are binding in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. Positive identification prevails over alibi, which requires proof not only of presence elsewhere but also of the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Accused-appellant failed to establish such impossibility, merely stating he was in a neighboring barangay, which did not preclude his presence at the locus criminis.
The Court also found that alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies—such as the origin of the grudge or whether there was moonlight—were minor and did not affect the core fact of positive identification and the existence of a motive. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, ensuring the victim’s defenselessness. The Court modified the damages, awarding an additional P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The decision of the trial court was affirmed with this modification.