GR 147996; (September, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147996 September 30, 2005
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. BAYANI ROMA, Appellant.
FACTS
An Information charged Bayani Roma and others with the murder of Garland Egos on April 13, 1991, in Cebu City. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Antonio Montilla and Stephen Egos, the victim’s brother. They testified that after Edwin Galeon shot the victim twice, causing him to fall, appellant Bayani Roma and another individual named Bitoy each fired a shot at the victim as he lay on the ground. Their testimonies were consistent, and Montilla positively identified appellant, noting the area was well-lit and his view was unobstructed as people had fled.
The defense interposed alibi. Appellant claimed he was at a drinking session far from the crime scene at the time of the shooting, a story corroborated by witness Maria Sentillas. Another defense witness, Celedonio Gucor, testified he saw the shooting but did not see appellant among the assailants. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of murder, a decision affirmed with modifications by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for murder based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and in rejecting his defense of alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The core issue hinged on the credibility of witnesses, a matter best assessed by the trial court. The prosecution eyewitnesses provided clear, positive, and consistent identification of appellant as a direct participant who fired a shot at the already fallen victim. Their testimonies were found credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of alibi, inherently weak, must yield to positive identification. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Appellant failed to establish such impossibility. The corroborating defense testimonies did not outweigh the positive identification by credible eyewitnesses. The Court also noted that while the prosecution referenced appellant’s departure from the area after the incident, the absence of conclusive proof of flight was immaterial, as flight is not an element of the crime and the evidence of guilt was otherwise overwhelming. The affirmed penalty and awarded damages stood.