G.R. Nos. 103226-28 October 14, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Marcelino C. Maguikay (alias Lino), accused-appellant.

FACTS

Three criminal cases for Murder (two counts) and Attempted Murder were filed against Marcelino C. Maguikay before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. The charges stemmed from an ambush on December 21, 1989, at around 5:45 PM along Ortigas Avenue Extension in Pasig. Carlos Bulilan and his sons Roberto and Danilo, along with Nazario Cunelas, were on their way home from work at G-Liner. After Cunelas alighted, their car was stopped in traffic. When it moved forward, three men approached. Accused-appellant Marcelino Maguikay, identified by the lone survivor Danilo Bulilan, stood in front of the car near the right headlight in a shooting position and fired at the occupants. Carlos and Roberto were killed; Danilo was wounded but survived by playing dead. The assailants tried to open the car doors, dragged Carlos’s body out, and fled after uttering, “Kunin ninyo ang gamit niya, may dala yan.” Danilo identified Maguikay at the hospital that evening to Renato Macapagal (G-Liner Chairman), to police officers, to reporter Salvador Valisa, and to Atty. Carlos Galarita. He again identified Maguikay in a police line-up on February 5, 1990. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Maguikay was on a bus trip to Catbalogan, Samar, from December 19, 1989, and was returning to Pasay City on December 21-22, 1989, as an apprentice driver for Inland Trailways, Inc. This was supported by co-drivers’ testimonies and logbooks. The trial court convicted Maguikay of two counts of Murder qualified by treachery with the generic circumstance of evident premeditation and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, with indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of each victim.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Marcelino C. Maguikay beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of Murder and Attempted Murder, particularly concerning the credibility of the eyewitness identification versus the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the positive identification by eyewitness Danilo Bulilan, who had a clear view of the assailant during the ambush, prevails over the defense of alibi. Danilo’s identification was immediate, consistent, and made under circumstances ensuring its reliability. His declarations at the hospital shortly after the incident were part of the res gestae. The defense of alibi was weak and not physically impossible, as the distance between Pasig and the locations claimed by the defense (e.g., Catbalogan, Samar) did not absolutely preclude Maguikay’s presence at the crime scene. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated because the attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victims no opportunity to defend themselves. However, the Court found that evident premeditation was not proven with equal certainty as the prosecution did not establish the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that choice, and a sufficient lapse of time to reflect on the consequences. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of Murder was affirmed, and the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 for each victim’s heirs was sustained. The awards for moral and exemplary damages were deleted.