G.R. No. 141344 . November 21, 2002.
TEMISTOCLES TAPDASAN, JR., petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SPOUSES LUISITO and JUANITA BORJA, respondents.

FACTS

On December 5, 1992, around 6:30 p.m., twelve-year-old Salmero Payla and nine-year-old Loue Boy Borja were walking along the shoulder of the national highway in Taguibo, Iligan City. A red “sakbayan” vehicle, moving very fast and attempting to overtake a big truck, swerved to the right shoulder to avoid an oncoming cargo truck, hitting Loue Boy Borja and throwing him about six meters away. Salmero Payla rushed to his friend, who was mortally wounded. The red sakbayan stopped, and its occupants—a male, a female, and a child—got off and looked in the boys’ direction. The vehicle then backed up to within about five meters of the scene. The male driver alighted, looked at the two boys, reboarded the vehicle, and sped away. Salmero Payla was able to see the driver’s face and the vehicle’s plate number (MAA-237) due to the lights from other passing vehicles. Loue Boy Borja died four days later. The driver was identified as Temistocles Tapdasan, Jr., and an Information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide was filed against him. At trial, petitioner interposed the defenses of denial and alibi, claiming he was at his family’s gasoline station in Lugait, Misamis Oriental, at the time of the incident. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals and the trial court erred in convicting the accused despite the alleged failure to prove his identity and guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the reliability of the eyewitness identification and the strength of the defense of alibi.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the issue of identification, the Court held that a police line-up is not a mandatory requirement for proving the identity of an offender. The eyewitness, Salmero Payla, provided a clear and credible account, identifying the petitioner as the driver under sufficient illumination from the headlights of a passing vehicle. The testimony of a child of sound mind, absent any ill motive, is accorded full credence. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to high respect. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible eyewitness. The penalty imposed by the trial court—an indeterminate sentence of 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 7 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum—is correct under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The awards of damages (P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P24,777.30 as actual damages, P100,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees) were also affirmed as proper and reasonable, especially given the petitioner’s act of abandoning the victim after the mishap.