G.R. No. 130603 ; August 15, 2000
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Raul Gallego, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Raul Gallego was charged with the murder of Wilfredo Lamata. On the evening of February 8, 1995, Gallego arrived at the Lamata residence in Guimaras, introducing himself as a military relative from Negros who wished to see Wilfredo after many years. He was met by Wilfredo’s wife Lucia, daughter Lina, and granddaughter Avelyn under the illumination of a fluorescent lamp from the living room. When Wilfredo descended, Gallego rushed to embrace him and suddenly stabbed him in the chest with a knife, also slashing Lucia’s arm during the attack. Gallego then fled on a motorcycle. Wilfredo was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.
The following day, Lucia and Lina positively identified Gallego at the police station as the assailant. Lina further recalled having briefly seen Gallego days earlier during a fiesta when he inquired about Wilfredo’s whereabouts. Avelyn also later identified him. In his defense, Gallego denied the accusation and presented an alibi, claiming he was at a market in another barangay at the time of the killing, as testified by a friend.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Gallego’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the credibility and reliability of the eyewitness identifications versus his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder, modified to homicide. The Court found the testimonies of the three eyewitnesses—Lucia, Lina, and Avelyn—to be credible, consistent, and positive. They had sufficient opportunity to observe Gallego at close range under adequate lighting conditions during the conversation preceding the attack and during the stabbing itself. Their subsequent identifications at the police station were deemed reliable. The Court emphasized that alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification. For alibi to succeed, the accused must demonstrate not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Gallego’s alibi failed this test, as the distance between the market and the crime scene was not insurmountable.
However, the Court downgraded the conviction from murder to homicide. The qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not proven with the required moral certainty. The attack, though sudden, was not shown to have been deliberately adopted to ensure execution without risk to the assailant, as the initial interaction was face-to-face. Evident premeditation was not established by clear evidence of planning or preparation. The aggravating circumstance of nighttime was also not proven to have been deliberately sought. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to an indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.