G.R. No. L-10611; March 13, 1959
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIRGILIO DIVINAGRACIA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of December 5, 1953, in barrio Malitbog, Calinog, Iloilo, Ernesto Cartel went to buy bread. On his way home, he met the appellant, Virgilio Divinagracia, who was armed with a carbine and accompanied by an unidentified man. From the balcony of his house, Cartel saw Divinagracia go to the neighboring house of Marina Gicole. Later, Cartel saw Divinagracia hiding behind a fence. When municipal policeman Santos Combong walked on the road in front of Gicole’s house, Divinagracia fired at him with the carbine, causing Combong’s instant death. Divinagracia and his companion then fled, passing by the house of Leonardo Caro. Cartel and Caro, who also heard the shot and saw the appellant flee, did not report the incident immediately due to fear, as armed dissidents (including the appellant) were terrorizing the area. The body of Combong was found the next morning with a fatal bullet wound. An investigation was conducted, but witnesses remained silent out of fear. In May 1955, after learning that Divinagracia had been arrested and jailed in Capiz for robbery in band, Cartel and Caro revealed what they knew to the authorities, leading to Divinagracia’s prosecution for murder. The appellant set up an alibi, claiming he was in Bacolod City at the time of the shooting.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the appellant for the crime of murder has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering the defense of alibi and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification of the appellant by eyewitness Ernesto Cartel, who had known him for a long time and witnessed the shooting from a clear vantage point, was credible and sufficient to establish guilt. The testimony was corroborated by Leonardo Caro, who heard the shot and saw the appellant flee immediately afterward. The court found the witnesses’ delay in reporting the crime, due to well-founded fear of the armed appellant and his group, to be satisfactorily explained. The defense of alibi cannot prevail against positive identification, and it was not shown to be physically impossible for the appellant to have been at the crime scene. Proof of motive is not indispensable when the accused’s participation is otherwise established by sufficient evidence, as in this case. The decision of the trial court sentencing the appellant to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity and costs, was affirmed.