G.R. No. L-32886 October 23, 1981
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AVELINO PISALVO Y SAPIGAO and ANDRES BALATCHICA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the night of November 16, 1969, Narciso Orines was shot and killed in Barrio Piaz, Villasis, Pangasinan. His wife, Anecita Orines, witnessed the shooting. She testified that while she and her husband were preparing to board a cargo truck to leave town, appellants Avelino Pisalvo and Andres Balatchica shot Narciso. The victim died from gunshot wounds, including a fatal wound in the back. The police recovered empty .45 caliber shells at the scene. Anecita immediately identified Pisalvo and Balatchica as the assailants, citing a prior serious misunderstanding between them and her husband. The appellants were charged with murder.
During trial, both appellants interposed alibis. Pisalvo claimed he was at Balatchica’s house in a neighboring barrio at the time of the killing. Balatchica alleged he was in Quezon City from November 9, 1969, to February 4, 1970. The defense presented witnesses, including Balatchica’s sister, to support his alibi. The prosecution, however, presented the Chief of Police of Asingan, who testified he saw Balatchica in Pangasinan on November 9, 11, and 15, 1969, directly contradicting the alibi.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of appellants Avelino Pisalvo and Andres Balatchica for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The trial court’s finding of guilt was upheld. The positive identification by eyewitness Anecita Orines, who had no ill motive to falsely testify, prevailed over the weak alibis of the appellants. The Court found her testimony credible and consistent. She was proximate to the crime scene, and there was sufficient illumination from a kerosene lamp and electric lights for identification. The alibi of Balatchica was thoroughly discredited by the testimony of the Asingan Chief of Police. For an alibi to succeed, it must be physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene; this was not established.
Regarding the qualifying and aggravating circumstances, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that treachery (alevosia) was present. The attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no chance to defend himself. However, the Court modified the penalty. It ruled that nocturnity and abuse of superiority were absorbed by treachery. Furthermore, evident premeditation could not be considered as an aggravating circumstance because the prosecution failed to prove the precise time when the appellants conceived their criminal design. Consequently, with treachery as the sole qualifying circumstance and no other aggravating circumstances, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death. The indemnity awarded to the heirs was affirmed.