Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
SPO1 LORETO
NERPIO, G.R. No. 155153
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J., Chairperson,
CARPIO,
-
versus - CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
and
VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
PEOPLE OF THE
Respondent. July 24, 2007
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I
O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
As a defense, an alibi derives its
strength from the fact that it involves the physical impossibility of the
accused to commit the crime. Once established, it constitutes a complete,
legitimate, and effective defense.[1]
The Case
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[2] under
Rule 45 assailing the December 3, 2001 Decision[3] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) and its September 5, 2002 Resolution[4]
which denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in CA-G.R. CR No. 21493
entitled People of the Philippines v. SPO1 Loreto Nerpio. The CA affirmed the
The Facts
On
That on or about the 3rd day of October 1993 in Kalookan City, M.M. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without justifiable cause and with deliberate intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot with a firearm one MARIO SALAZAR, hitting the latter on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the victim Mario Salazar serious physical injuries which injuries caused his death.[6]
During arraignment on
The records bear out the following
facts regarding the crime:
On
Thereafter, Nelly Villanueva, who was then waiting for a friend along
The autopsy report of Dr. Florante
Baltazar revealed that Salazar died of multiple gunshot wounds. He found five (5)
gunshot wounds––three (3) on the head area and two (2) on the body. He also discovered one hematoma on the
victim’s right eye and multiple abrasions on the right side of his body.
During trial,
Villanueva identified petitioner as the malefactor. However, petitioner denied the imputation and
claimed alibi as defense. He maintained
that on the day of the crime, he never left his house until after he heard
about a shooting incident involving his cousin and Salazar. When he rushed to the scene of the crime, he saw
that Salazar was already dead.
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered CONVICTING the accused, SPO1 LORETO NERPIO of the crime of Homicide under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS as minimum to TWENTY (20) YEARS as maximum, with accessory penalties prescribed by law and to pay the heirs of the victim Mario Salazar the sum of [PhP] 50,000 as indemnity for the death of the said victim and to pay the amount of [PhP] 40,000 as actual and compensatory damages and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Petitioner
appealed to the CA. However, as earlier stated, the CA dismissed the appeal.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Affirming
the trial court’s Decision, the CA upheld the credibility of Nelly Villanueva
as eyewitness to the shooting incident.
It observed that Villanueva’s “frank and consistent manner of testifying
bears the mark of a credible witness especially on the face of an intense and
lengthy interrogation made by the defense.”[10] It also held that the discrepancies in
Villanueva’s affidavit and testimony in court are inconsequential. It ruled that statements in affidavits are
“subordinated in importance to open court declarations.”[11]
Hence, we
have this petition.
The Issues
Petitioner submits the following
issues for the Court’s consideration:
I
Whether or not the
Honorable Court of Appeals seriously erred in affirming the conviction of
petitioner on the basis of the lone testimony of prosecution witness Nely
Villanueva.
II
Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals seriously erred in disregarding the accused’s defense of alibi despite the patent weakness of the prosecution’s evidence.[12]
The Court’s Ruling
The petition has no merit.
Credibility of the Prosecution Eyewitness
In assessing the credibility of
witnesses, we are guided by the following principles: (1) the reviewing court
will not disturb the findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that
it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of
weight and substance that could affect the results of the case; (2) the
findings of the trial court respecting the credibility of witnesses are
entitled to great respect and even finality as it had the opportunity to
examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a
witness who testifies in a clear, positive, and convincing manner and remains
consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[13]
Applying the foregoing guidelines in
this case, we find no reason to overturn the factual findings of the trial and
appellate courts. A careful review of the records and the transcripts shows
that the RTC correctly gave credence to Villanueva’s testimony.
Petitioner faults Villanueva for her
inconsistent statements regarding the profession of the assailant,[14]
the address of the victim,[15] the
time of the incident,[16]
and the length of time that she has known the victim.[17] However, these alleged inconsistencies are
trivial and bear no materiality to the commission of the crime of homicide of
which petitioner was convicted. It must
be noted that discrepancies should refer to significant facts which are crucial
to the guilt or innocence of an accused.
Thus, inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant
to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal.[18]
The same is true regarding the
alleged discrepancies between Villanueva’s Sinumpaang
Salaysay and her testimony.
Petitioner discredits Villanueva for her varying statements regarding
her address and educational background. These matters are not material to
Villanueva’s positive identification of petitioner as the malefactor. Moreover, it must be stressed that affidavits
taken ex parte are inferior to
testimony given in court, the former being invariably incomplete and oftentimes
inaccurate due to partial suggestions or want of specific inquiries.[19]
We also find reliable Villanueva’s manner
of identifying petitioner as the offender.
As correctly held by the appellate court:
[Petitioner]
gives too much importance to Villanueva’s description on his physique, which
according to him fits a thousand person[s], hence insufficient. x x x
x x
x x
With
[Villanueva’s] long testimony on record, [she] did not waver when asked by the
public prosecutor, the defense counsel and the court, in pointing to
[petitioner] as the malefactor of the crime charged. Her testimony is categorical, frank and in a
straightforward manner. Such frank and
consistent manner of testifying bears the mark of a credible witness especially
on the face of an intense and lengthy interrogation made by the defense. x x x
In trying to discredit Villanueva, [petitioner] argues that he was identified
by Villanueva only upon prodding made by the prosecution and the trial
court. However, [petitioner] failed to
point out how the prosecution and the trial judge pressured Villanueva in identifying
him in open court. Such argument,
therefore, is baseless for being speculative and conjectural.[20]
Sufficiency of the Prosecution Evidence
To sustain a conviction for the crime
of homicide, it is essential that the following elements be proven beyond
reasonable doubt: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him
without any justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the intention to
kill, which is presumed; and (4) that the killing was not attended by any of
the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.[21]
In the present case, absent any
allegation of any justifying and qualifying circumstances, the prosecution had
the burden of proving the death of the victim and the responsibility of the
person who caused such death. Dr. Baltazar testified to the fact of Salazar’s
death. However, petitioner contends that
the prosecution failed to establish that he was the malefactor. He argues that testimony of the prosecution’s
lone witness to the crime is not credible.
We disagree. Petitioner’s conviction
was based on the positive and direct testimony of the prosecution eyewitness,
Villanueva. Absent any evidence of improper motive on her part to testify as
principal witness, her testimony deserves full credit.[22]
On the other hand, petitioner offers alibi
and denial as his defense. It is a
settled doctrine that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the
accused was at some other place when the crime was committed; but the defense
must likewise demonstrate that the accused could not have been physically
present at the place of the crime, or in its immediate vicinity, during its
commission.[23] In considering the physical distance of the
accused from the crime scene, the Court has rejected alibi where the two places
are in the same municipality,[24]
where they are easily accessible by any mode of public transportation,[25] where
the distance can be covered by walking for thirty minutes or by riding a
vehicle for twenty minutes,[26]
or even when it could be reached after approximately an hour.[27]
In the present case, the geographical
proximity of petitioner to the scene of the crime at the time of its commission
was clearly established by the prosecution.
Petitioner claims that at the time of the alleged killing, he was at
home hosting a party. However, he also
testified that it was only 150 meters away from the crime scene. He even admitted that he went to the crime
scene but only after the shooting took place.
Apparently, petitioner failed to show, by clear and convincing proof,
that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the locus criminis.
Also, denial is a negative,
self-serving evidence that cannot prevail over the positive and categorical
assertion of a credible witness that accused perpetrated the crime.[28] In this case, petitioner has not given strong
evidence of his inculpability.
To stress, the positive assertions of
the prosecution witness deserve more credence and evidentiary weight than the
negative averments of the accused. Certainly, the testimony of a single
eyewitness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction[29] for homicide.
WHEREFORE, the
instant petition is DENIED for
failure to show that a reversible error had been committed by the appellate
court. The December 3, 2001 Decision and September 5, 2002 Resolution of the CA
in CA-G.R. CR No. 21493 and the
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F
I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Alibi, § 136, pp. 205-206 (2nd ed., 1965).
[3]
[5]
[7]
Atty. Froilan Siobal.
[8] Supra
note 6, at 15.
[10] Supra note 2, at 60.
[11]
[12] Supra note 2, at 33; original in capital letters.
[13] People
v. Galido, G.R. Nos.
148689-92,
[14] Rollo, p. 34.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] People v. Sancha, G.R. Nos. 131818-19,
[19] People v. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 131035, February
28, 2003, 398 SCRA 415, 431;
citing People v. Estorco, G.R. No.
111941, April 27, 2000, 331 SCRA 38, 51.
[20] Supra
note 2, at 50-60.
[21] L. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book II 431 (13th ed., 1993).
[22] People v. Malejana, G.R. No. 145002,
[23] People v. Werba, G.R. No. 144599,
[24] People
v. Agomo-o, G.R. No. 131829,
[25] People v. Abendan, G.R. No. 131813,
[26] People v.
[27] People v. Manzano, G.R. No. 138303,
[28] People v. Bulan, G.R. No. 143404, June 8, 2005, 459 SCRA 550, 576; People v.
Espinosa, G.R. No. 138742, June 15, 2004, 432 SCRA 86, 100; People v.
Layugan, G.R. Nos. 130493-98, April
28, 2004, 428 SCRA 98, 115.
[29] People v. Pascual, G.R. No. 127761,