G.R. No. 93664 December 11, 1992
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Temistocles Castor y Tranguia, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of May 17, 1986, at Cherryville Subdivision, Barangay Nagkaisang Nayon, Novaliches, Quezon City, Sotero Roy y Barnuevo was stabbed to death. The cause of death was hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds on the chest and back. An information for Murder was filed against accused-appellant Temistocles Castor and Luis Canalan. After pleading not guilty, trial ensued. However, a fire gutted the courthouse, destroying the records. The trial court ordered reconstitution. After re-arraignment and a new trial where witnesses were presented anew, the trial court convicted accused-appellant Castor of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, while acquitting co-accused Canalan. Castor appealed.
The prosecution’s version, based primarily on eyewitness Robert Mingoa, is as follows: Castor and the victim, Sotero Roy, were co-employees at a junk shop. On May 1, 1986, they quarreled over Castor’s alleged amorous relation with Roy’s wife. Castor threatened to kill Roy. On May 17, 1986, around 8:00 p.m., Castor, together with a companion named “Palping,” stabbed Roy near the gate inside the junk shop compound. The wounded Roy ran towards a house about ten meters away, but Castor and Palping followed him inside and continued the attack until Roy slumped to the floor, mortally wounded. Mingoa witnessed the entire incident from a few meters away and later from inside the house. The defense of accused-appellant was alibi, claiming he was in Caloocan City at the time of the killing.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Robert Mingoa despite alleged inconsistencies.
2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defense of alibi.
3. Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the appeal unmeritorious and affirmed the conviction.
1. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of eyewitness Robert Mingoa involved minor, trivial, or inconsequential matters, such as the specific place of the stabbing and his inability to give complete names of individuals. Such inconsistencies do not affect credibility and may even be considered badges of veracity, showing the absence of rehearsed testimony. The totality of Mingoa’s testimony clearly established that the attack commenced near the gate and continued inside the house.
2. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused-appellant by an eyewitness. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene. Accused-appellant failed to establish physical impossibility, as Caloocan City and Quezon City are neighboring cities. Positive identification renders alibi worthless.
3. The evidence sufficiently proves accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery (alevosia). The autopsy report revealed multiple stab wounds, including two fatal wounds directed towards vital organs (the aorta and the heart). The nature, number, and location of the wounds indicate a determined effort to kill. The attack was sudden and unexpected, with the victim given no opportunity to defend himself. The qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was not proven, as the threat made two weeks prior during a heated quarrel, without more, does not establish the requisite deliberate planning. The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of indemnity to the victim’s heirs.