G.R. No. 130670 . May 31, 2000.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SAMAD AGANDO and MIKINOG MINANGGA, accused, MAKINOG MINANGGA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Mikinog Minangga, was convicted of two counts of murder for the deaths of Virgilio Capangpangan and his nine-year-old daughter, Ivy. The prosecution evidence established that on September 17, 1993, the victims were flagged down while driving in Iligan City. Samad Agando and Mikinog Minangga approached the vehicle, drew firearms, and shot Virgilio. Before fleeing, Minangga also shot Ivy. Prosecution eyewitness Patricio Alegarne, who was riding on the vehicle, positively identified Minangga as one of the assailants. Virgilio died on the spot, while Ivy succumbed to her injuries days later.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Minangga was in a different municipality assisting in a wedding preparation at the time of the crime, corroborated by the municipal mayor. The defense also presented a witness, Hadji Panda Malang, who claimed to have witnessed the incident and identified different perpetrators, namely members of the Agando family. Malang suggested a case of mistaken identity, noting a physical resemblance between Minangga and one alleged assailant.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant based on the prosecution’s evidence and in rejecting the defenses of alibi and mistaken identity.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification of the appellant by eyewitness Patricio Alegarne prevails over the defenses of alibi and denial. Alegarne’s testimony was clear, consistent, and credible, given from a vantage point that allowed him to see the assailants clearly. The Court found no ill motive for Alegarne to falsely testify. Minor inconsistencies between his court testimony and a prior sworn statement were deemed inconsequential, as they pertained to the number of companions and did not undermine his core account of the appellant’s direct participation.
The defense of alibi was properly rejected as it was not physically impossible for the appellant to have been at the crime scene. The corroborating testimony of the mayor was insufficient to establish this impossibility. The testimony of defense witness Malang, who implicated others, was deemed unreliable. His account was inconsistent with the physical evidence and other testimonies, and his claim of mistaken identity based on a facial scar was unconvincing. The Court upheld the finding of treachery, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victims helpless. However, evident premeditation was not proven. The penalties of two reclusion perpetua and the awarded damages were affirmed.