G.R. Nos. 100453-54; February 1, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIRGILIO BATULAN and RODULFO BATULAN, accused. VIRGILIO BATULAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

In the evening of January 10, 1990, in Taboc, Danao City, Nicolas Gonzales, Sr. and his two sons, Conrado and Adolfo, were celebrating a family occasion with friends. While they were having a drinking session in front of Conrado’s store, a volley of gunshots erupted from a nearby house at around 1:00 AM. Adolfo was hit first. Nicolas, while dropping to help his son, saw accused Virgilio Batulan pointing a rifle at them, with accused Rodulfo Batulan standing beside him. More shots followed, hitting Nicolas and Conrado. Witness Camilo Ypil, who looked out his window upon hearing the gunfire, also clearly saw Virgilio and Rodulfo holding firearms in a firing stance under good illumination. Adolfo and Conrado died from their wounds, while Nicolas survived.
Consequently, Virgilio and Rodulfo Batulan were charged with double murder for the deaths of Conrado and Adolfo, and frustrated murder for the shooting of Nicolas. Only Virgilio Batulan was arrested and tried, as Rodulfo remained at large. The Regional Trial Court found Virgilio Batulan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both charges. He appealed, questioning the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence for conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimonies, is sufficient to prove the guilt of accused-appellant Virgilio Batulan for the crimes of double murder and frustrated murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, Nicolas Gonzales, Sr. and Camilo Ypil. Nicolas, a victim himself, positively identified Virgilio as one of the assailants from a short distance under illuminated conditions. His dying declaration to his wife, naming “Virgilio” and “Rudy,” further corroborated his account. Camilo Ypil, an impartial witness, likewise gave a clear and consistent identification of appellant at the scene.
The Court rejected the defense of alibi, emphasizing that it cannot prevail over positive identification. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene. Appellant failed to prove such impossibility. The positive identification by credible witnesses established his presence and participation. The Court also ruled that proof of motive is unnecessary when there is direct and positive evidence identifying the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. The trial court correctly relied on such identification for conviction. The penalties were modified to use the correct nomenclature of reclusion perpetua and to adjust the indeterminate sentence for frustrated murder in accordance with law.