G.R. No. 87017 . July 20, 1990.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO BARING, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Pedro Baring, was convicted of murder by the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte for the killing of Patrocinio Eyas on October 17, 1985. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of Maria Fe Eyas, the victim’s daughter. She testified that at around 9:00 PM, while her family was watching television, a man called for her father. As Patrocinio descended the stairs, he was shot by Nelson Rodriguez, Romeo Panilagao, Pedro Gabato, and finally by the appellant, Pedro Baring, who shot the victim after he had already fallen. The family, fearing for their lives, did not immediately report the crime and eventually moved away. They only reported the incident to the fiscal in August 1986 after a new mayor was elected.
The defense interposed an alibi. Baring claimed he was half a kilometer away at the house of Alfredo Aleviado, eating and conversing at the time of the shooting. He denied participation and suggested Maria Fe fabricated her testimony, alleging she had approached him to identify the killers or be implicated himself. The trial court found the alibi weak and credited the positive identification by the prosecution witness.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of Maria Fe Eyas, whose positive identification of the appellant as one of the assailants was clear, straightforward, and consistent. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. In contrast, the defense of alibi must establish not only the accused’s presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. The appellant failed this test, as the distance of half a kilometer was easily negotiable, rendering his alibi unconvincing.
Regarding the qualifying circumstances, the Court agreed with the trial court’s finding that the prosecution failed to prove treachery or evident premeditation. However, the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength was duly proven, as the victim was attacked by four armed men. The Court also correctly appreciated the generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime. The attack occurred at 9:00 PM, and nocturnity is aggravating when deliberately sought to prevent recognition or ensure escape, which was applicable here as the appellant lived nearby and used the cover of darkness. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awarded indemnities were thus affirmed.