People v. Mores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 9, 1991, at around 2:00 AM, in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, accused Marcelino Mores, Ronnie Racuma, and Danilo Zamora allegedly conspired to rob the Caltex Gasoline Station. The Information alleged that they forcibly opened a cabinet, stole P10,455.00, and in the process, treacherously attacked and killed the nightguard, Alex Montemayor, with evident premeditation, superior strength, and treachery. Procedural History: The case proceeded against Marcelino Mores and Danilo Zamora, with Ronnie Racuma remaining at large. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, convicted both Mores and Zamora of robbery with homicide. Only Danilo Zamora appealed the decision. The Petition: Accused-appellant Danilo Zamora raised two assignments of error: (1) the lower court erred in giving credence to the eyewitness testimony of Virgilio Castillo due to material inconsistencies in his sworn statements; and (2) the lower court erred in not giving credence to Zamora's defense of alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the eyewitness testimony of Virgilio Castillo is credible despite alleged inconsistencies in his sworn statements. Whether the defense of alibi presented by accused-appellant Danilo Zamora should be given credence over the positive identification by prosecution witnesses.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Danilo Zamora for robbery with homicide, sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay civil indemnity and actual damages. The Court found no reversible error in the RTC's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Virgilio Castillo's testimony: The Court held that affidavits are generally considered inferior to testimony given in open court, especially when the affiant is available for cross-examination. While Castillo's affidavits contained inconsistencies, his testimony in court was positive, straightforward, and consistent regarding the material points of the crime. The Court emphasized that the opportunity for the trial court to observe the witness's demeanor and for the defense to cross-examine renders the in-court testimony more credible. The presence of inconsistencies in affidavits does not automatically denigrate a witness's credibility, particularly when the witness is presented in court and subjected to rigorous examination. Therefore, Castillo's testimony, which positively identified both accused, was deemed credible. On the defense of alibi: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that denials and alibis, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving. These cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification made by credible prosecution witnesses who have no apparent motive to fabricate falsehoods. In this case, the positive identification by Castillo, Wilfredo Alegre, and Cesar Gutierrez, who testified on the affirmative matters of seeing the accused at the scene of the crime and their involvement, was given greater evidentiary weight than Zamora's unsubstantiated alibi. The Court found that the prosecution witnesses were disinterested and their testimonies were credible, thus outweighing the defense of alibi.
Main Doctrine
The positive identification of the accused by credible eyewitnesses, even if contradicted by denials and alibis, prevails. Inconsistencies in affidavits do not necessarily impair credibility when the witness testifies consistently in court and is subject to cross-examination. The aggravating circumstances of treachery and superior strength, when present in robbery with homicide, warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty, which is reclusion perpetua in light of the abolition of the death penalty.