G.R. No. 171453 June 18, 2009
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-appellee, vs. Manuel Delpino, Accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Manuel Delpino was charged with Murder for the death of Gabriel Lorica. The Information alleged that on December 16, 1993, in Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Delpino, armed with a short firearm, shot Gabriel Lorica with intent to kill, treachery, and evident premeditation. Upon arraignment, Delpino pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s principal witness was the victim’s seven-year-old son, Mark Lorica, who testified that on the night of the incident, he and his father were watching TV when they heard a knock. When the victim opened the door and stooped to get his slippers, Delpino shot him in the neck. Mark identified Delpino in open court. The victim’s wife, Marilyn Lorica, testified about the expenses for the wake and burial. Dr. Myrna Listanco conducted the autopsy. The defense presented Delpino and Oscar Lanuza, who testified that Delpino was washing buses at the JB Line Terminal from 7:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. on the night of the crime and could not have committed it. The Regional Trial Court found Delpino guilty of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱10,000.00 as actual damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification, adding an award of ₱50,000.00 as moral damages.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in convicting accused-appellant based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the positive identification by the child witness, against his defenses of denial and alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the positive identification by the prosecution witness, Mark Lorica, prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi. The Court found Mark competent to testify, noting that a child witness is competent if they possess the capacity of observation, recollection, and communication, and can appreciate the moral duty to tell the truth. His testimony was candid, consistent, and unwavering even during cross-examination. The Court ruled that alibi cannot succeed unless the accused proves they were at another place at the time of the crime and that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. Here, Delpino failed to prove physical impossibility, as the distance between the JB Line Terminal and the victim’s house could be negotiated by walking in ten to twenty minutes. The Court affirmed the finding of treachery, as the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim’s defenselessness. The Court modified the damages, awarding ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱10,000.00 as actual damages. The award of exemplary damages was deleted due to the absence of aggravating circumstances.