THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF VS. ADRIANO SALAZAR AND PABLITO MASONGSONG, ACCUSED.  ADRIANO SALAZAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Salazar

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Adriano Salazar and Pablito Masongsong for the killing of Agapito Comea, the barrio captain of San Vicente, General Luna, Quezon Province. Only Salazar was convicted, and he brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact illustration of three enduring rules of evidence and criminal procedure: the sufficiency of a single eyewitness, the strict requirements of the defense of alibi, and the weight given to a prompt and positive identification made by a witness who knew the accused.

Procedural History

After the killing, the Chief of Police filed a complaint for murder against Salazar and Masongsong. Salazar waived the preliminary investigation. The Fiscal then filed an information for murder. The case was tried in the Circuit Criminal Court at Lucena City, which convicted Salazar of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Agapito Comea in the sum of twelve thousand pesos, and to pay the costs. Masongsong was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Salazar appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors in the appreciation of the evidence against him.

Facts

At around eleven o'clock in the evening of January 30, 1970, Fe Reyes-Comea and her husband Agapito Comea, the barrio captain, were making copra at a kiln near the house of Marcelo de Gala in Barrio San Vicente, General Luna, Quezon Province. The kiln was illuminated by a de gasa lamp. While Comea was feeding the furnace, Fe, standing about two arms' length from him, heard footsteps behind them. Turning her head, she saw Adriano Salazar about three arms' length away, aiming his gun at Comea's back and firing. Only one shot was fired. Pablito Masongsong stood behind Salazar. After the shot, Salazar said to Masongsong, "Tayo na pare at patay na." Comea fell, mortally wounded on the left side of his back, the bullet exiting in front between the first and second ribs near the clavicle.

Fe screamed for help. The Chief of Police and his men arrived at around two o'clock in the morning of January 31st and investigated until five-thirty. At six o'clock, the Chief of Police went to the residences of Salazar and Masongsong and informed them that Fe Comea had accused them. Fe had known Salazar for a long time, and Masongsong had been defeated by her husband in the election for barrio captain. The Municipal Health Officer found a gunshot wound of entry on the back near the third thoracic vertebrae, damaging the lungs and aortic vessel, and concluded that the cause of death was shock due to hemorrhage.

The killing was provoked by the fact that Comea was the principal prosecution witness in a theft case filed in September 1969 by Elpidio Lopez against Salazar's wife and relatives. On the basis of Fe's sworn statement of January 31, 1970, the complaint for murder was filed on February 1, 1970. At trial, Salazar and Masongsong, both farmers, set up alibi, claiming they were in their respective homes when the shooting occurred. Salazar's house was about five hundred meters from the scene, and Masongsong's about one kilometer away. Melecia Rabe testified that Fe was asleep in her house when the shot was fired, a claim Fe rebutted.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimony of a single eyewitness, Fe Comea, is sufficient to convict the appellant Salazar.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to Fe Comea's identification of Salazar rather than accepting the possibility of an honest mistake.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi should have been given credence.

Applicable Provisions

No specific statutory provision is quoted in the decision. The Court instead applies settled jurisprudential rules on the sufficiency of a single witness and on the credibility of alibi, which it states as follows:

The testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce conviction if it appears to be trustworthy and reliable.

This rule bears directly on the case because Salazar's conviction rested mainly on the testimony of one eyewitness, the victim's wife.

Generally, in order that an alibi may be credible, the accused should establish that it was impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its commission.

This rule governs the disposition of Salazar's alibi, which the Court rejected because the distance between his house and the kiln did not make it impossible for him to be at the scene.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce conviction if it appears trustworthy and reliable. It found Fe Comea's testimony clear, positive, and devoid of any sign of artificiality, and affirmed the trial court's appraisal of her credibility.

On the second issue, the Court held that the opportunity for identification was favorable. The kiln was illumined by a de gasa lamp, the surrounding ground was level and newly cleared, and Salazar stood about three arms' length behind the victim. The possibility of an honest mistake was remote because both accused were well known to Fe and were residents of the same barrio. Her prompt identification of Salazar to the police a few hours after the shooting, and again before the municipal judge the next day, precluded all possibility of bad faith and fabrication.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the alibi. Salazar's house was only about five hundred meters from the kiln, a distance that could be walked in half an hour or less, so it was possible for him to go to the scene and return right away after the shooting. Since he was positively identified by the victim's wife as the gunwielder, his alibi could not be given credence.

Doctrine

First, the testimony of a single witness, if trustworthy and reliable, is sufficient to sustain a conviction; the law does not require corroboration where the lone eyewitness is credible. Second, a positive identification made promptly after the crime, by a witness who knew the accused and had a favorable opportunity to observe, prevails over the defense of alibi. Third, alibi is credible only when the accused establishes that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission; mere distance that can be traversed in a short time does not suffice.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Criminal Court convicting Salazar of murder, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize the twin rules: a single trustworthy eyewitness can convict, and alibi fails unless it shows physical impossibility. Examiners use this case to test the sufficiency of a lone eyewitness and the strict standard for alibi.