G.R. Nos. 111066-67 August 15, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VILLAMOR ORDOÑA @ AMOR, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On April 25, 1992, spouses Marcelo and Felicitas Valenzuela were ambushed while traveling home on a tricycle in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija. Marcelo, the driver, saw accused-appellant Villamor Ordoña, a PC/PNP member, open fire. Felicitas was hit and fell. Marcelo attempted to flee but was shot twice. He later saw Ordoña return to where Felicitas lay and fire at her again. Felicitas died from her wounds, while Marcelo survived after medical treatment. The prosecution established a motive rooted in a prior dispute over Marcelo’s purchase of a water pump from Ordoña’s father, which had angered the accused.
Ordoña interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was watching basketball games at his PC company headquarters in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, at the time of the shooting. He was supported by a witness, Cresencio Marzan. The Regional Trial Court convicted Ordoña of Murder for the killing of Felicitas and Frustrated Murder for the attack on Marcelo, rejecting his alibi and appreciating treachery. The case was elevated on appeal.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant based on the identification and testimony of the victim, Marcelo Valenzuela, and in rejecting the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Marcelo Valenzuela’s positive identification of Ordoña as the gunman. Marcelo knew Ordoña personally and had a clear, unobstructed view during the daylight attack, making his testimony credible and reliable. The Court emphasized that positive identification prevails over alibi, especially when the accused was not shown to be physically impossible from being at the crime scene. The distance between the crime scene and the basketball game location did not constitute an insurmountable physical impossibility.
Furthermore, the Court affirmed the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that ensured the victims had no opportunity to defend themselves. The unprovoked shooting of the unarmed spouses on their tricycle squarely met the legal definition of alevosia. The Court also found the defense’s invocation of the “equipoise rule” inapplicable, as the evidence of guilt was not equally balanced but was firmly established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appealed decision was affirmed in toto.