G.R. No. 128883 February 22, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SALVADOR GALIDO alias “SALVADOR ‘BADONG’ UBERAS”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Salvador Galido was charged with the murder of Dindo Panganiban. The prosecution presented eyewitness Renato Fillera, who testified that around 12:30 a.m. on July 4, 1994, at the Bacolod City public plaza bandstand, he saw Galido approach and stab a sleeping man. Fillera, positioned about five meters away under sufficient lighting, clearly recognized Galido, whom he often saw at the plaza. The victim stood briefly before collapsing. Fillera later learned from a friend that the victim was the friend’s brother-in-law. Police investigation, based on another witness’s statement, led to Galido’s arrest. The medico-legal officer confirmed the fatal stab wound caused by a sharp bladed instrument.
For his defense, Galido interposed denial and alibi, claiming he was asleep in his boarding house, located approximately five minutes from the crime scene, at the time of the incident. He denied knowing the victim or the other witness. The trial court convicted Galido of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages to the victim’s heirs.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of murder based on the eyewitness testimony and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, finding no reason to disturb its conclusion. The positive identification by eyewitness Fillera, who had a clear view of the incident and knew the appellant by sight, prevailed over the weak defense of alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Galido failed this test, admitting his boarding house was merely five minutes away from the plaza, making his presence at the crime scene highly possible. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated because the attack was sudden and employed against a victim who was asleep and utterly defenseless, ensuring the execution without risk to the assailant.
The Court modified the awarded damages. Consistent with jurisprudence, civil indemnity was affirmed at P50,000. Moral damages were increased to P50,000. The computation for loss of earning capacity was rectified using the standard formula: 2/3 x (80 – age at death) x annual net income (average of P125 daily income, less living expenses). This resulted in an increased award of P930,000. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed as proper.