G.R. No. 135666 ; July 20, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MELCHOR GARCIA y BARTOLOME, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information dated August 25, 1995, charged accused-appellant Melchor Garcia y Bartolome with murder for the killing of Roel Diego on May 21, 1995, in San Agustin, Isabela, with evident premeditation and treachery. He pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution evidence established that at around 2:00 a.m. on May 21, 1995, during a barangay fiesta, the victim Roel Diego was drinking with Federico Perez, Jr. and Edgar Agliam inside a stall owned by Everlyn Camungao. The stall was illuminated by a 100-watt electric bulb, and a thin pink curtain hung at its entrance. An adjacent stall, separated by a bamboo divider, was where the appellant and his companions were. Appellant left his stall, approached the entrance of Camungao’s stall holding a shotgun, and from a distance of two meters, fired through the curtain at the back of Roel Diego, who was seated with his back to the entrance. The victim died from multiple gunshot wounds. Prosecution witnesses Edgar Agliam and Everlyn Camungao positively identified appellant as the shooter, testifying they clearly saw him through the thin, well-lit curtain from a distance of less than two meters. Ofelia Diego, the victim’s wife, testified on the wake and burial expenses and the loss of her husband’s income.
The defense presented denial and alibi. Appellant testified he was at the fiesta until about 11:00 p.m. on May 20, then went home and slept. He claimed he was already home when the crime occurred at 2:00 a.m. He denied the shooting and asserted he was left-handed, contrary to a witness’s demonstration of a right-handed shooter. His uncle, Amor Bartolome, corroborated his alibi, testifying appellant arrived home at 11:30 p.m. and did not leave.
The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses’ identification of the appellant as the perpetrator.
2. Whether the trial court erred in its conclusion regarding the appellant’s handedness.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting the appellant based on his defense of alibi.
4. Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Whether the trial court erred in its award of damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages.
1. On the credibility of prosecution witnesses: The Court found no error. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Edgar Agliam and Everlyn Camungao was credible and reliable. They had a clear view of the appellant through the thin, illuminated curtain from a short distance. Their testimonies were consistent and detailed. The defense’s claim that the curtain was opaque was contradicted by the evidence and the witnesses’ ability to see through it.
2. On the appellant’s handedness: The Court found the issue irrelevant. Whether appellant was right-handed or left-handed did not disprove the positive identification. The demonstration by witness Camungao was merely illustrative and not a crucial point for establishing identity.
3. On the defense of alibi: The Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the alibi. For alibi to prevail, it must be physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene. Here, appellant’s residence was only one kilometer away from the crime scene, a distance he could traverse. His alibi, corroborated only by a relative, was inherently weak and could not overcome the positive identification by credible eyewitnesses.
4. On proof beyond reasonable doubt: The Court held that the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, as the attack was sudden and from behind, without any warning or opportunity for the victim to defend himself. The element of evident premeditation was not proven.
5. On the award of damages: The Court modified the trial court’s award. It affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the victim’s death. It also awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages. However, the award of P4,760,000.00 for loss of earning capacity was deleted due to insufficient evidence; the wife’s testimony on the victim’s income was not supported by documentary evidence. Actual damages of P70,000.00 were not awarded for lack of receipts, but temperate damages of P25,000.00 were granted in lieu thereof.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction for murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, but modified the civil liability as stated.