GR 23234; (December, 1973) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23234 December 26, 1973
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Hipolito Resayaga y Babol, accused-appellant.
FACTS
During a town fiesta in Baao, Camarines Sur, on August 24, 1962, a group including the victim, Severo Parro, was in the plaza. Their companion, Sotero Yuson, was drunk and unruly. After Yuson bumped into Dionisio Brisuela, Brisuela boxed Yuson, knocking him down. Parro helped Yuson to his feet, but Brisuela struck Yuson again. As Parro, in a stooping position, attempted to assist Yuson once more, the accused-appellant Hipolito Resayaga, who was Brisuela’s brother-in-law, stabbed Parro in the abdomen. Parro was rushed to a hospital but died the following day from the wound.
The police investigation recovered a knife near the crime scene. Eyewitnesses Zosimo Biag and Manuel Banaga positively identified Resayaga as the assailant. In his defense, Resayaga interposed an alibi, claiming he was at a store in the public market and later went home to a nearby barrio around the time of the stabbing. He argued that the prosecution witnesses were not credible and that the evidence against him was doubtful.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Hipolito Resayaga was the perpetrator of the murder, thereby rendering his defense of alibi untenable.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously dismantled the defense of alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene when it occurred. Resayaga failed this test. His own testimony placed him in the poblacion of Baao, specifically at locations not remote from the town plaza, at or near 7:00 PM, the time of the stabbing. Therefore, it was entirely possible for him to have been present at the plaza.
The Court found the positive identification by eyewitnesses Biag and Banaga to be credible and categorical. Their testimonies directly pinpointed Resayaga as the person who stabbed Parro. The Court rejected Resayaga’s attempts to impugn their credibility through alleged inconsistencies, noting that minor discrepancies do not undermine the core of their consistent narrative. The Court also found motive in the evidence: Resayaga acted to aid his brother-in-law, Brisuela, during the commotion, mistakenly perceiving Parro as an antagonist. The appealed decision was affirmed in toto.