G.R. No. 131827 September 3, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERLITO PELEN y MUÑERA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On December 12, 1993, around 7:00 PM, Maximo Perlada and his wife Narcisa were riding a carabao home when six men blocked their path. A flashlight was focused on Maximo, and a gunshot hit him in the head. Narcisa recognized her neighbor, accused-appellant Gerlito Pelen, as the shooter. After the couple fell, Maximo was shot again by an unidentified companion. Accused-appellant then pulled Narcisa away as the other men stabbed Maximo to death. Narcisa ran home, reported the incident to the barangay captain and an army detachment, but did not initially name the assailant. She gave a sworn statement on December 14, 1993, implicating accused-appellant and Cesar Rey, explaining that the Reys, their landlords, wanted to evict them and had threatened them, with accused-appellant present. An information for murder was filed. During trial, Narcisa positively identified accused-appellant as the shooter but did not see Cesar Rey at the scene. Accused-appellant presented an alibi, claiming he was at home from 6:00 to 8:00 PM attending to his sick son with a quack doctor, Expedito Patubo, who corroborated his story. The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and acquitted Cesar Rey. Accused-appellant appealed, arguing Narcisa’s testimony was unreliable due to her failure to immediately identify him.

ISSUE

Whether the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Narcisa Perlada, is credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction of accused-appellant Gerlito Pelen for murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Narcisa’s credibility, finding no reason to overturn it. Narcisa positively identified accused-appellant, whom she knew as a neighbor, recognizing him by his form and silhouette when he pulled her arm during the attack. Her failure to name him immediately to the barangay captain was not unreasonable, as she was distraught and merely sought help; she formally implicated him in a sworn statement just two days later. The Court found her identification convincing and more credible than accused-appellant’s alibi. For alibi to prevail, it must be convincing enough to preclude the possibility of presence at the crime scene; here, accused-appellant lived in the same barangay, making his presence possible. Positive identification, when categorical and consistent, prevails over alibi. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was affirmed in toto.