G.R. No. 87214 . March 30, 1993.
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Emilio Sadiangabay, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The victim, Feliciano Meregillano, disappeared after telling the accused-appellant, Emilio Sadiangabay, that he was leaving for Manila and entrusting his property to him. Months later, the victim’s scattered bones were discovered and identified by his son through a denture. The prosecution’s main witness, Raymundo Tabligan, testified that on March 10, 1980, he saw Sadiangabay and Meregillano walking together. He witnessed Sadiangabay box the old man unconscious, stab him twice with a bolo, take a bundle of papers from him, and scatter the contents of his bag. Tabligan later saw Sadiangabay washing his bloodied bolo. Tabligan did not report the incident until about five months later when the bones were found, explaining he was afraid of retaliation. The defense presented alibi, claiming Sadiangabay was in Brooke’s Point from the afternoon of March 9, 1980, to sell palay, supported by friends. Other defense witnesses claimed they saw the victim alive on March 11, 1980. The trial court convicted Sadiangabay of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant based on the prosecution’s evidence and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The delay in reporting the crime was satisfactorily explained by the witness’s fear of retaliation from the accused, who had acted violently. The defense of alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by an eyewitness. The corroborating witnesses for the alibi were close friends whose detailed recall after more than four years was suspect. The alleged grudge of the prosecution witness against the accused did not impair his credible testimony, which withstood cross-examination. Minor inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence do not diminish the essential veracity of the testimonies. The fact that the judge who penned the decision did not hear the witnesses does not impair its efficacy, as he had the full record for study. The aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation was not established, but the crime was committed with grave abuse of confidence, abuse of superior strength, against a sickly victim over 70 years old, and in an uninhabited place. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, and the civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.