GR L 32518; (November, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32518 November 7, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PROTACIO MAAGAD, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On February 19, 1969, four armed men entered the house of Francisco Sing in Valencia, Bukidnon, announcing themselves as PC Rangers. They ordered the occupants to lie down and proceeded to rob them. The accused-appellant, Protacio Maagad, identified as the “fat man,” seized Francisco Sing, demanded money, and upon being told there was none, slapped, kicked, and fatally shot him. The robbers then ransacked the house, taking cash and jewelry from Dionisia Sing (Francisco’s wife), Tita Sing, and Tan Pao Sing. Dionisia Sing later positively identified Maagad in a police lineup, leading to his arrest. A co-accused, Pablito Denurog, pleaded guilty and implicated Maagad in a sworn statement.
At trial, Maagad interposed an alibi, claiming he was at a rice mill in Calubihon, 43 kilometers away, at the time of the crime. Defense witnesses testified he was there until around 5:00 PM. The prosecution presented the eyewitness testimonies of Dionisia Sing and Tita Sing, who consistently and unequivocally identified Maagad as one of the perpetrators.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting Protacio Maagad of Robbery with Homicide based on the eyewitness identification and in rejecting his defense of alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by the eyewitnesses, Dionisia and Tita Sing, who had a clear and unobstructed view of the accused during the traumatic incident, was deemed credible and reliable. Their testimonies were consistent and delivered without hesitation. The Court emphasized that alibi is inherently weak and must be established by clear and convincing evidence. The defense failed to meet this burden. The testimonies of the defense witnesses did not conclusively prove it was physically impossible for Maagad to be at the crime scene at 5:30 PM, given the 43-kilometer distance was negotiable by vehicle in under an hour, especially considering the co-accused’s statement that they used a jeep. The crime was committed by a band and within the victim’s dwelling, aggravating the offense. Consequently, the imposition of the death penalty for the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code was upheld.