G.R. No. 122746 January 29, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO VILLANUEVA y FAUSTINO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Mario Villanueva was charged with murder for the shooting death of Joaquin Nacional on September 19, 1993, in Manila. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Adelfa Nacional (the victim’s wife) and Bienvenida Nacional (the victim’s sister), who testified that while buying cigarettes from a store, they saw Mario Villanueva walk behind the victim, pull a gun, and shoot him below the right ear from a very close range before fleeing with a companion. The crime scene was illuminated by a fluorescent lamp. Both witnesses identified the accused, whom Adelfa recognized from previous encounters, including an altercation over a cockfight about a year prior. Bienvenida also cited a separate altercation over a cockfight bet occurring about ten days before the killing. The medico-legal report confirmed the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head, with evidence indicating the gun’s muzzle was very close to the entry point. The defense presented an alibi, with witnesses testifying that Mario was in Caloocan City attending a drinking session from the afternoon of September 19 until past midnight and therefore could not have been at the crime scene. Mario himself claimed the victim’s family accused him due to a past dispute over a game of cara y cruz.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant, Mario Villanueva, for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the positive identification by eyewitnesses versus the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by the eyewitnesses, who had no improper motive to testify falsely, prevails over the defense of alibi. The Court found the testimonies of Adelfa and Bienvenida Nacional to be clear, consistent, and credible. The defense of alibi was weak and not physically impossible, as the distance between the crime scene in Manila and the alleged location in Caloocan City was not insurmountable. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, as the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The Court modified the damages awarded, deleting the award for loss of earning capacity due to insufficient evidence but sustaining the awards for civil indemnity, actual damages (as stipulated), and moral damages. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.