People v. Nerpio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 3, 1993, SPO1 Loreto Nerpio allegedly shot and killed Mario Salazar. The incident occurred after Salazar had been invited to a drinking session at Nerpio's residence. Later that day, a witness observed Salazar being approached by a man, shot, and then mauled by several other individuals before succumbing to multiple gunshot wounds. The autopsy report confirmed Salazar died from five gunshot wounds to the head and body. Procedural History: An Information for homicide was filed against SPO1 Loreto Nerpio on March 24, 1994. He pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 122, convicted Nerpio of homicide on October 20, 1997, sentencing him to twelve to twenty years imprisonment and ordering him to pay damages. Nerpio appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's conviction on December 3, 2001, and subsequently denied Nerpio's motion for reconsideration on September 5, 2002. The Petition: Petitioner SPO1 Loreto Nerpio filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. He assails the CA's decision, arguing that the appellate court erred in affirming his conviction based solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Nelly Villanueva. Nerpio further contends that the CA erred in disregarding his defense of alibi, asserting that the prosecution's evidence was weak and that his alibi should have been given more weight, particularly given the alleged inconsistencies in the eyewitness's testimony and the proximity of his residence to the crime scene.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the petitioner based on the lone testimony of the prosecution witness. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the accused's defense of alibi despite the alleged weakness of the prosecution's evidence.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The December 3, 2001 Decision and September 5, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and the October 20, 1997 Decision of the Caloocan City RTC, Branch 122, are affirmed. Costs are against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the lone eyewitness testimony: The Court reiterated the principles guiding the assessment of witness credibility, emphasizing that reviewing courts generally do not disturb the findings of lower courts unless there is a showing of overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of substance. The RTC's credence given to Villanueva's testimony was found to be correct. Alleged inconsistencies in Villanueva's statements regarding the assailant's profession, the victim's address, the time of the incident, and her acquaintance with the victim were deemed trivial and immaterial to the commission of the crime. The Court stressed that discrepancies must pertain to significant facts crucial to guilt or innocence, not irrelevant details. Furthermore, affidavits taken ex parte are considered inferior to open court declarations. Villanueva's identification of the petitioner was found to be categorical, frank, and straightforward, remaining unwavering even under intense cross-examination, thus bearing the mark of a credible witness. The petitioner's argument that Villanueva was pressured to identify him was found baseless and speculative. On the defense of alibi: The Court reiterated the established doctrine that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove the accused was elsewhere; it must also be demonstrated that the accused could not have been physically present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity. The Court cited previous rulings where alibi was rejected due to the proximity of the locations or ease of travel. In this case, the petitioner claimed to be at home hosting a party, which was only 150 meters away from the crime scene. He admitted going to the scene after the shooting. Therefore, the petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that physical impossibility prevented his presence at the locus criminis. Denial, being a negative and self-serving evidence, cannot prevail over the positive and categorical assertion of a credible witness. The testimony of a single eyewitness, if positive and credible, is sufficient for conviction.
Main Doctrine
The defense of alibi requires proof of physical impossibility to be at the crime scene. Inconsistencies in an eyewitness's affidavit and testimony are considered trivial if they do not pertain to material facts crucial to the guilt or innocence of the accused. A single credible eyewitness testimony is sufficient for conviction.