G.R. No. 90295 February 5, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENHUR TAHUYAN y ADON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of January 24, 1984, barangay Migcawayan, Damulog, Bukidnon, was raided by around fifty armed men. The attack resulted in seven deaths, four injuries, houses being riddled with bullets, and the taking of carabaos, horses, and personal belongings. Accused-appellant Benhur Tahuyan, the Barangay Captain of Omonay (about 30-36 kilometers away), was identified by prosecution eyewitness Gregorio Bagares as one of the raiders. Bagares testified that he saw Tahuyan standing guard outside his house, armed with an M-79 rifle, while three companions ransacked and later set fire to the house. Tahuyan was charged with Robbery in Band with Multiple Murder and Physical Injuries with the Use of Unlicensed Firearms. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, Tahuyan pleaded innocence, claiming alibi—that he was sick with flu at his house on the date of the incident and was attended to by his parent-in-law, Enrique Dagawasan, a PANAMIN Project Officer. He also alleged that Bagares was testifying against him due to a grudge against his brother, Prudencio Tahuyan, who was killed months earlier.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the credibility of witnesses: whether to believe the prosecution eyewitness Gregorio Bagares, who positively identified the accused-appellant as one of the raiders, or the defense witness Enrique Dagawasan, who corroborated the accused-appellant’s alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision with MODIFICATION, increasing the indemnity to the heirs of each victim to P50,000.00. The Court upheld the trial court’s reliance on the positive identification made by eyewitness Gregorio Bagares, who knew Tahuyan from prior CHDF and Barangay Administration training sessions. The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. It ruled that the defense of alibi is weak and cannot prevail over positive identification, especially since the accused-appellant failed to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime, which was only 36 kilometers away from his barangay. The Court also found the motive alleged by the defense—that Bagares was after the accused-appellant’s brother—unbelievable, as the brother was killed more than five months before the raid, and thus Bagares had no credible motive to testify falsely.