G.R. No. 144975 ; June 18, 2003
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. AMADOR SAPIGAO, et al., Appellants.

FACTS

On December 24, 1998, in Asingan, Pangasinan, Emmanuel and Gem Sapigao were blocked by Reynaldo Sapigao and Elpidio Mamerto. Reynaldo fired at them, prompting the brothers to hide. From their hiding places, they witnessed Reynaldo shout for help, claiming their uncle, Barangay Captain Arturo Mamerto, Sr., was under attack. This prompted Elpidio Mamerto, Verson Mamerto, and Robert Obillo, all armed, to join Arturo Mamerto, Sr. at his house. Emmanuel heard Arturo instruct the group to shoot anyone approaching an abandoned motorcycle. Later, when their cousin, Marine Corporal Lauro Sapigao, and two companions stopped near the motorcycle, a group including Elpidio Mamerto, Arturo Mamerto, Sr., and several Sapigao relatives opened fire, killing Lauro. The terrified brothers fled and reported the incident two months later.
An Information for Murder was filed against multiple accused. Only Elpidio Mamerto was apprehended; the others remained at large. At trial, the prosecution presented eyewitness accounts from Emmanuel and Gem Sapigao. The defense, conversely, presented an alibi, asserting Elpidio was at his home celebrating Christmas Eve with relatives and was unaware of the shooting. The Regional Trial Court convicted Elpidio Mamerto of Murder and imposed the death penalty, prompting an automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimonies, is sufficient to overcome the defense of alibi and prove the guilt of accused-appellant Elpidio Mamerto beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The alleged inconsistencies in Emmanuel Sapigao’s testimony—specifically the variance between the number of assailants named in his sworn statement (six) and his court testimony (nine)—were deemed minor and did not undermine his core account. The Court explained that such discrepancies on collateral details are common and may even enhance credibility by showing a witness is not rehearsed. The positive identification of Elpidio Mamerto as an active participant in the armed group that ambushed and killed the victim was clear and consistent.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prevail, it must be demonstrated that the accused was so far away that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Here, Mamerto’s own admission placed his house a mere twenty meters from the locus criminis, making his presence not only possible but, given the positive identification, highly probable. Alibi cannot stand against the positive and credible testimony of eyewitnesses. The Court thus affirmed the finding of conspiracy, as the collective armed assault demonstrated a unity of purpose to kill Lauro Sapigao. However, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the penalty was reduced from death to reclusion perpetua, as the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently alleged with particularity in the Information regarding the manner of execution.