G.R. No. 113786 May 29, 1995
People of the Philippines vs. Lucito Alvarez and Benjamin Padilla

FACTS

Accused Nonoy Baclayo, Lucito Alvarez, Danilo Millare, Benjamin Padilla, and a certain “King” were charged with the murder of P/Sgt. Rolando Suello. Baclayo died before trial, and the case against Millare was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Alvarez and Padilla of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. They appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence and the finding of conspiracy.
The prosecution evidence established that on September 5, 1989, in Tagum, Davao, Sgt. Suello was conversing with Patricio Jacobe, Jr. when appellants Alvarez and Baclayo approached. An altercation ensued. Appellant Padilla then disarmed Suello by grabbing his service pistol. Subsequently, Baclayo shot Suello in the stomach with an armalite rifle. As Suello lay on the ground, appellant Alvarez shot him in the head with an M14 rifle, causing his instantaneous death. Prosecution witnesses Zorayda Sapilen and Patricio Jacobe, Jr. positively identified both appellants and detailed their specific acts.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellants Lucito Alvarez and Benjamin Padilla beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s factual findings, which carry great weight on appeal, were supported by clear and positive testimony. For appellant Alvarez, the defense argued that witness statements were too general. The Court found this contention baseless. Witnesses Sapilen and Jacobe gave categorical and detailed accounts, specifically identifying Alvarez as the one who shot the victim in the head with a long firearm. Their familiarity with Alvarez prior to the incident negated any possibility of mistaken identity.
For appellant Padilla, who interposed the defense of alibi, the Court ruled that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. Both prosecution witnesses consistently testified that Padilla participated by disarming the victim, grabbing his service pistol immediately before the shooting. This act of rendering the victim defenseless was integral to the execution of the crime, demonstrating community of criminal purpose with Baclayo and Alvarez. The collective actions of disarming and successively shooting the victim established conspiracy, making each co-conspirator equally liable for the resulting murder. The appealed decision was affirmed, though the award for moral damages was deleted for lack of evidentiary basis.