G.R. No. 103875 September 18, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE NARSICO (NARCISO) alias ROGELIO LIMPIO y SUICO and EFREN SUICO (at large), accused.

FACTS

On July 20, 1988, Eliezer Rosario was watching a betamax movie inside Jovel Pesquera’s store in Balamban, Cebu, with Pesquera and Rogelio Estan, among others. The accused-appellant, Jose Narsico, and his co-accused, Efren Suico, arrived. Narsico advanced inside and, without provocation, fired a volley of shots at Rosario, who was seated facing the television. Narsico then immediately walked out, followed by Suico. Rosario was rushed to the hospital but later died from a fatal gunshot wound. The medico-legal officer testified that the absence of a defensive wound indicated the victim was unaware of the impending attack.
The appellant denied involvement, setting up an alibi that he was working at Marlyn Trading in Cebu City on the night of the incident, a claim corroborated only by his co-worker, Rey Espisa. He assailed his identification by prosecution witnesses Pesquera and Estan, arguing that they never mentioned his name to police immediately after the shooting and executed their affidavits only over a month later, rendering their testimonies suspicious.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of murder based on the identification by prosecution witnesses despite the alleged delay, and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Pesquera and Estan, who had a clear view of the appellant under sufficient fluorescent lighting inside and outside the store, prevailed over the weak defense of alibi. The Court explained that delay in executing sworn statements does not automatically impair credibility, especially where witnesses had already reported the incident to the victim’s brother and the authorities promptly. The witnesses’ initial fear and the ongoing police investigation accounted for the timing of their formal affidavits.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as inherently weak. For it to prosper, the accused must prove he was elsewhere at the time of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. The appellant failed on both counts. His place of work in Cebu City was not so geographically distant from Balamban as to preclude his presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, the corroborating testimony of Espisa was deemed rehearsed and unnatural by the trial court, as he displayed a curious lack of concern or inquiry about the serious charges against his close associate. The denial of the appellant, being unsubstantiated, could not overcome the affirmative and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The killing was qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself.