GR 145509; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145509; March 16, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JAYMAR RUGAY y TORRES and HARRY SOLIDUM alias ARIEL SOLIDUM alias REY TIMBAL, accused. HARRY SOLIDUM alias ARIEL SOLIDUM alias REY TIMBAL, appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s case established that on October 14, 1998, around 1:00 a.m. in Iligan City, eyewitnesses Leonel Samontiza and Said Dumlas saw appellant Harry Solidum and his co-accused Jaymar Rugay approach the victim, Jaime dela Peña, who was urinating. Rugay held the victim’s hand while appellant placed an arm around his neck. When the victim resisted, appellant stabbed him in the back and Rugay stabbed him in the chest. Rugay then snatched the victim’s wristwatch, after which both assailants fled. The victim died from his wounds. Appellant was subsequently charged with the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
At trial, appellant, also known as Rey Timbal, interposed the defense of alibi and denial. He claimed he was in Bukidnon and later at his residence in Suarez, Iligan City, during the time of the incident and had no participation in the crime. His co-accused, Jaymar Rugay, who had already pleaded guilty, testified for the defense and claimed that the eyewitnesses, Leonel and Said, were the actual perpetrators and that he (Rugay) stabbed the victim only after being kicked by him. The trial court convicted appellant, giving full credence to the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, despite their alleged lack of credibility and the defense of alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of prosecution witnesses Leonel Samontiza and Said Dumlas. Their positive identification of appellant as one of the perpetrators was found to be clear, consistent, and categorical. The Court emphasized that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, especially where, as here, appellant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene. His claimed whereabouts were not so distant as to preclude his presence at the locus criminis.
Furthermore, the Court found the claim of the defense witness, Jaymar Rugay, to be inherently unreliable. His testimony, which sought to exculpate appellant and implicate the prosecution witnesses, was deemed a mere afterthought, considering his prior judicial confession of guilt. The crime was properly classified as Robbery with Homicide, as the taking of the wristwatch was proven to have preceded the killing, establishing the intent to gain (animus lucrandi) as the central motive. The conspiracy between appellant and Rugay was evident from their coordinated actions in assaulting the victim. Thus, the conviction was sustained.