GR 186541; (February, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 186541 ; February 1, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICENTE VILBAR, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
On May 5, 2000, at the Ormoc City public market, accused-appellant Vicente Vilbar was having a drinking spree. The victim, Guilbert Patricio, arrived and admonished one of Vilbar’s companions for urinating near his store. Vilbar then stood up, approached Patricio, and without warning, stabbed him with a knife, causing his death. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including the victim’s widow, Maria Liza Patricio, and Pedro Luzon, who positively identified Vilbar as the assailant under well-lit conditions and knew him from prior encounters.
The defense presented a different version. Vilbar claimed it was his companion, Dodong Danieles, who stabbed Patricio following the altercation. Defense witness Cerilo Pelos corroborated this, identifying a man in a black shirt (allegedly Danieles) as the perpetrator. The Regional Trial Court convicted Vilbar of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the conviction to homicide, finding treachery not proven, but affirmed his criminal liability.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed accused-appellant Vicente Vilbar’s conviction for homicide, rejecting his defense of denial and alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification on damages. It upheld the conviction for homicide, ruling that the positive identification by credible eyewitnesses prevails over Vilbar’s denial and alibi. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Maria Liza Patricio and Pedro Luzon clear, consistent, and credible. They testified under oath that they saw Vilbar, whom they recognized, suddenly stab the victim. Their proximity to the event and the adequate illumination at the scene bolstered their reliability.
The defense of denial and alibi, coupled with the testimony of Cerilo Pelos pointing to another assailant, was deemed weak and unsubstantiated. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Vilbar failed to establish this impossibility. Between positive identification and bare denial, the former must prevail. The Court also agreed that treachery was not established, as the prosecution did not prove that the mode of attack was consciously adopted to ensure the victim’s defenselessness. Thus, the crime is homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of twelve years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered Vilbar to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages to the victim’s heirs.