GR 86211; (October, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 86211 October 17, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO SORIO y BALAD, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Mario Sorio y Balad, was convicted of murder for the killing of Ruben Espiritu. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Efren Balbastro, testified that on September 21, 1986, at around 5:00 a.m., he was at Fely’s Kitchenette in Valenzuela. He witnessed a heated argument between the eatery owner and the victim, Ruben Espiritu. After the argument, Espiritu left the establishment. Subsequently, four men, including the appellant, who had been drinking inside, ran after him. Balbastro positively identified Sorio as the one who overtook and stabbed Espiritu before fleeing the scene.
The defense consisted solely of the appellant’s testimony, wherein he denied any involvement and interposed the defense of alibi. He claimed he was at his home in Novaliches, Quezon City, at the time of the incident, having slept there since 10:00 p.m. the previous night after tending his peanut vending store in Valenzuela. The autopsy report indicated the victim sustained two fatal stab wounds, one to the chest and another to the back, causing death from hemorrhage.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, giving great weight to the positive identification made by eyewitness Efren Balbastro. His testimony was found to be clear, straightforward, and credible. The Court ruled that the defense of alibi, inherently weak and easily fabricated, must yield to the positive identification of the accused. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. The appellant failed to establish this impossibility, as the distance between Novaliches and Valenzuela did not preclude his presence at the locus criminis.
Furthermore, the Court affirmed the presence of treachery, qualifying the killing to murder. The attack was sudden, from behind, and executed in a manner that deprived the unarmed and unsuspecting victim of any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. This method was consciously adopted to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to the assailant. The appealed judgment was affirmed, with the modification of increasing the civil indemnity to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.