GR 175829; (March, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175829 ; March 20, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. DOLORICO GUILLERA y ALGORDO and GARY GUILLERA y ALGORDO, Appellants.
FACTS
The appellants, Dolorico and Gary Guillera, along with another at-large accused, were charged with Murder for the killing of Enrique Hernandez. The prosecution presented the victim’s widow, Geraldine Hernandez, as its sole eyewitness. She testified that on March 29, 2002, she and her husband were at their farm when they saw the appellants and their companion removing the farm’s wire fence. When Enrique approached to question them, Dolorico suddenly hacked him on the nape from behind. As Enrique fell, Gary and the other accused joined in the assault, hacking and stabbing him. Geraldine, who was about ten meters away, hid and later reported the incident.
The appellants interposed the defense of alibi. Dolorico claimed he was at home caring for his sick child, while Gary asserted he was working in Cagayan province at the time. Gary presented a witness to corroborate his alibi, but her testimony was stricken from the record after she failed to appear for cross-examination. The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellants of Murder, qualified by treachery, and found conspiracy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering the lone eyewitness testimony against their defenses of alibi and denial.
RULING
Yes, the conviction was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts. The positive, categorical, and consistent identification by eyewitness Geraldine Hernandez prevails over the weak defenses of alibi and denial. The Court found her testimony credible, noting she had a clear view of the incident from a short distance and remained unwavering during cross-examination. Her relationship to the victim does not impair credibility absent evidence of improper motive.
The defense of alibi must demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused being at the crime scene. The appellants failed to meet this stringent requirement. Dolorico did not prove it was impossible for him to travel to the location, and Gary’s claim of being in a distant province was uncorroborated after his witness’s testimony was expunged. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated, as the attack from behind was sudden, rendering the victim defenseless. Conspiracy was deduced from the appellants’ concerted actions in successively assaulting the victim. The Court sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awarded damages, as modified by the Court of Appeals.