G.R. No. L-47069. March 29, 1982.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE ORSAL, ET AL., accused, VICENTE ORSAL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Vicente Orsal, along with three others, was charged in four separate cases for Arson (two counts) and Robbery in Band with Homicide/Multiple Homicide. Only Orsal and co-accused Ramon Gutierrez stood trial. The prosecution established that on April 13, 1974, in Zamboanga City, Orsal and his companions were seen armed and visiting the houses of Andrea Bejic and later Jesus Limen. That evening, the group went to the house of Cristino Bejic. Witnesses heard Orsal’s voice shouting from the direction of the Bejic house. Subsequently, the Bejic family’s main house and the Limen house were set ablaze. The crimes resulted in the deaths of Jesus Limen, Cristino Bejic, Eduarda Bejic, Roberto Bejic, and Atanasia Legazpi, and the theft of various valuables.
The trial court convicted Orsal as a principal. In Criminal Case No. 432 for Robbery in Band with Homicide, he was sentenced to death due to the presence of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and band, without any mitigating circumstances. He received additional penalties for the other crimes. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review of the death penalty.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting Vicente Orsal based on the evidence presented and in imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the penalty in toto. The legal logic rests on the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the weakness of the defense. The Court found the testimonies of eyewitnesses Andrea Bejic, Antonio Bejic, and Ramon Jimenez to be clear, consistent, and credible. They positively identified Orsal as part of the armed group present at the crime scenes on the day of the incidents. Antonio Bejic specifically recognized Orsal’s voice shouting near the house that was later burned. The Court held that no improper motive was shown for these witnesses to falsely accuse Orsal of such grave crimes.
The defense of alibi was rejected as inherently weak and unsubstantiated. Orsal’s claim of being in another barrio was not corroborated, as the alleged supporting witness failed to appear in court despite opportunities. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. Regarding the penalty, the Court agreed with the trial court’s finding of two aggravating circumstances—nighttime and band—with no mitigating circumstances to offset them. Under the applicable law for Robbery with Homicide, this justified the imposition of the supreme penalty of death. The judgment was thus affirmed in its entirety.