G.R. No. 95455. March 23, 1993.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUDY ABEJERO and MELANIO CADALIN, accused-appellants, VICTOR DOE, MICHAEL DOE, PETER DOE and PAUL DOE, accused.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Rudy Abejero and Melanio Cadalin, along with four unidentified accused, were charged with Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. The information alleged that on August 18, 1989, at about 9:00 PM in Sitio Luan-Luan, Siaton, Negros Oriental, the accused, armed with deadly weapons, conspired to rob the house of spouses Enrique and Josefina Lastimado. After demanding money and guns, ransacking the house, and taking cash and belongings, Rudy Abejero slapped Enrique Lastimado. Subsequently, an accused identified as Victor Doe hacked Enrique twice on the neck, causing his instant death. Rudy Abejero simultaneously stabbed Josefina Lastimado in the stomach. Josefina survived due to timely medical attendance. Only appellants Abejero and Cadalin were arraigned and tried, as the other accused remained at large. The Regional Trial Court convicted both appellants and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. They appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issues revolve around the credibility of the prosecution’s identification of the appellants and the strength of their respective defenses. For appellant Abejero, the issue is whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the positive identification by complainant Josefina Lastimado. For appellant Cadalin, the issues are whether the trial court erred in giving weight to Josefina’s inconsistent testimony, in rejecting his defense of alibi, and in finding his guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court.
1. As to appellant Rudy Abejero: The Court affirmed his conviction. His defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by complainant Josefina Lastimado. She had known Abejero for nine years, the crime scene was adequately illuminated by the full moon and kerosene lamps, the perpetrators did not wear masks, and they stayed inside the house for about 40 minutes. There was no showing of any evil motive for her testimony. The Court rejected Abejero’s argument that it was contrary to human experience for a known criminal to leave a survivor, stating that the fact the victim did not die does not mean she was spared; she was left in a critical condition and survived only due to timely medical attention.
2. As to appellant Melanio Cadalin: The Court reversed his conviction and acquitted him on grounds of reasonable doubt. His identification by the complainant was open to serious doubt. Complainant’s testimony in court that Cadalin stabbed her contradicted her previous sworn statement before a Municipal Trial Judge that it was Rudy Abejero who stabbed her. This inconsistency was not inconsequential. Furthermore, Cadalin’s defense of alibi, corroborated by his brother and sister, that he was at his home in a remote barrio more than a hundred kilometers away at the time of the crime, was credible given the difficulty of the route, unavailability of transportation, and the time of night. The prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The civil indemnity to the heirs of Enrique Lastimado was increased to P50,000.00.