G.R. No. 98430 July 10, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROSALINO NECERIO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Rosalino Necerio, was charged with murder for the killing of Salvador Orogo on June 15, 1990, at about 9:30 in the evening in Barangay Palanog, Camalig, Albay. The information alleged the crime was committed with treachery and evident premeditation and inside the victim’s dwelling. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Necerio guilty beyond reasonable doubt, appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay indemnity and damages. Necerio appealed, assigning errors that the trial court erred in finding his guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt, in disregarding his defense of alibi, and in failing to consider the absence of motive.
The prosecution’s primary witness was the victim’s wife, Ludita Orogo. She testified that on the night of the incident, she was lying down in their small house (2.5 by 4 meters) with her husband and children. A kerosene lamp with a wick the size of a small finger illuminated the house. She heard the door open and saw the accused, whom she recognized as their compadre and a frequent visitor, suddenly enter. Necerio went near her sleeping husband and immediately stabbed him. After stabbing the victim, Necerio pulled out the knife, poked it at Ludita, and warned her not to inform anyone or he would return to kill her. She shouted for help only after he left.
The defense interposed alibi. Necerio claimed he was at the house of his fiancée’s father, Tito Neo, about 200 meters away, at the time of the incident. He stated he heard shouts, went with Amador Neo to the victim’s house, looked at the cadaver but did not go up the house, and did not approach the widow. He did not visit the family, attend the wake, or go to the funeral afterward. His testimony was corroborated by Magdalena Neo and Amador Neo.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of murder based on the eyewitness testimony and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the award of civil indemnity. The trial court’s findings and assessment of witness credibility were upheld. The Court ruled that the alleged inconsistencies in Ludita Orogo’s testimony were minor and did not impair her essential credibility or the truthfulness of her narration. Her positive identification of the accused was credible, given the illumination from the kerosene lamp, the small size of the house, and her familiarity with Necerio. No sinister motive was shown for her to falsely testify.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime. Here, the defense failed to demonstrate such impossibility, as the house of Tito Neo was only about 200 meters away from the crime scene. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by a credible witness. The Court also found the accused’s behavior after the incident—not visiting the bereaved family despite being a compadre—as unnatural and indicative of guilt.
Regarding the aggravating circumstances, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s appreciation of treachery (alevosia), as the attack was sudden and the victim was sleeping, unable to defend himself. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was also properly appreciated. However, the Court ruled that nighttime should not have been considered separately, as it was absorbed by treachery.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The civil indemnity for the death of Salvador Orogo was increased to P50,000.00. The decision of the trial court was AFFIRMED with this modification.