G.R. No. 93240 January 22, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Catalino Lorioda y Herbacio alias “Lino,” Igmedio Mortera alias “Abat,” Alejandro Aguilar alias “Candro,” and Lorenzo Vinluan alias “Inso,” defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the morning of September 27, 1987, Antonio Domingo was riding a bicycle along a deserted road in Barangay Coliling, Rosales, Pangasinan, when he was waylaid by a group of six men. They hacked his head with a bolo and inflicted several stab wounds on his body, causing his death. An information for murder was filed against Catalino Lorioda, Igmedio Mortera, Alejandro Aguilar, Lorenzo Vinluan, and two others at large. The four accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented eyewitness Romeo Oganiza, who testified that he and Florencio Javien saw the accused intercept and kill Domingo from a hidden vantage point about thirty meters away. Oganiza reported the incident to the Rosales police, but Sgt. Valeriano Otoman refused to record it; they then reported to the 151st PC Company in Tayug, where their sworn statements were taken. Oganiza later transferred residences due to alleged harassment. The accused interposed the defense of alibi. Mortera and Aguilar claimed they were in Villasis at the time, corroborated by Rafael Bascos, Sgt. Otoman, and canteen owner Lilia Darimbang. Lorioda and Vinluan claimed they were attending a wake and burial in Rosales, corroborated by Adriano Javien. The trial court found all four accused guilty of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in relying on the uncorroborated testimony of prosecution eyewitness Romeo Oganiza and in not giving credence to the defense of alibi.

RULING

The trial court’s factual findings and assessment of witness credibility are affirmed. The trial court has a decided advantage in assessing credibility, and its findings are entitled to great respect. The court found Oganiza’s testimony to be candid, spontaneous, credible, unbiased, and untainted with prejudice, with no improper motive to falsely testify. His positive identification of the accused, who were residents of the same barangay, was reliable. The defense of alibi was unconvincing; Mortera and Aguilar could have easily traveled from Villasis to Rosales, and Lorioda and Vinluan were already in Rosales at the time of the crime. The corroborating witnesses for the defense appeared biased. The concerted attack indicated conspiracy among the accused to kill Domingo. Motive is not an essential element of murder and need not be proved when positive identification exists. The prosecution evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appealed decision is AFFIRMED, with the modification that the civil indemnity is increased to P50,000.00.