G.R. No. L-66884 May 28, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE TEMBLOR alias “RONALD,” defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Vicente Temblor, was convicted of murder for the killing of Julius Cagampang. The prosecution evidence established that on the evening of December 30, 1980, Temblor entered the victim’s store in Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, and asked to buy cigarettes. As Cagampang attended to him, a burst of gunfire ensued, instantly felling the victim. The victim’s wife, Victorina, witnessed two men, one of whom she positively identified as Temblor, enter the store. They demanded her husband’s firearm, after which Temblor fired two more shots at the fallen victim. Victorina surrendered a suitcase containing a .38 caliber revolver, which Temblor took before fleeing. She later identified Temblor at the police station.
Temblor interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in a different barangay, drinking at a friend’s house from the afternoon of December 30 until the morning of December 31. He argued that Victorina did not know him by name, casting doubt on her identification. The prosecution, however, presented evidence, including a company time record, to show that the friend he allegedly visited was at work during the relevant period, thereby discrediting the alibi.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the accused was positively identified as the perpetrator, and (2) whether his defense of alibi should be sustained.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the issue of identification, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, which is generally binding on appeal. Victorina Cagampang provided a positive and credible identification, made from a distance of less than a meter under sufficient lighting inside the store. Her testimony was corroborated by another witness who knew Temblor and saw him at the store that evening. Minor inconsistencies did not detract from the overall credibility of her account.
Regarding the alibi, the Court reiterated the doctrine that for alibi to prosper, it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene. The defense failed to meet this burden. Evidence established that the location where Temblor claimed to be was accessible to the crime scene via a well-paved road in just 15 to 20 minutes. His uncorroborated alibi could not prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witnesses. The Court also noted that the accused’s flight and hiding in the mountains after the incident constituted an implied admission of guilt. Proof of motive was not essential given the positive identification, though the trial court reasonably inferred the motive was to acquire the victim’s firearm, consistent with known NPA tactics. The civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00.