G.R. No. 104930 ; March 1, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEX BELLO @ “BONG” and JOHN DOE, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on October 6, 1989, at around 5:00 A.M., eyewitness Antonio Diche was waiting to buy bread at Glory’s Bakery in Masbate. He saw appellant Alex Bello approach the victim, Pancho Capinig, from behind and shoot him. As the victim ran outside, Bello, joined by another man, chased and continued firing at Capinig until he fell. Diche, who was three meters away, positively identified Bello as one of the assailants. The autopsy by Dr. Artemio Capellan revealed the victim suffered six gunshot wounds, five of which were fatal. The defense, however, presented an alibi. Bello claimed he was inside the locked house of Congressman Tito Espinosa at the time of the shooting, a story corroborated by Narciso Bravo Jr., the congressman’s son-in-law. Furthermore, another alleged eyewitness, Gerardo Jaca, who had initially executed an affidavit identifying Bello, recanted his statement in court, testifying he was coerced by police to make the identification.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant Alex Bello for the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt, despite his defense of alibi and the recantation of a witness.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that positive identification by a credible eyewitness prevails over alibi and denial. Antonio Diche provided a clear, consistent, and credible account of the shooting, delivered without any apparent motive to falsely testify. His testimony was corroborated by the physical evidence from the autopsy. The defense of alibi was inherently weak, as it was not physically impossible for Bello to have been at the crime scene given the proximity of the congressman’s house. The Court also gave little weight to the recantation of Gerardo Jaca, noting that affidavits taken ex parte are generally inferior to testimony given in open court where the witness can be cross-examined. Jaca’s vacillating and contradictory court testimony further undermined his credibility. The totality of the prosecution evidence, particularly Diche’s unwavering positive identification, established Bello’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated, as the initial attack from behind ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of civil indemnity were thus affirmed.