G.R. No. 122838 May 24, 1999
People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Hillado

FACTS

Accused-appellant Romeo Hillado, a CAFGU member, was charged with the murder of Amor Baltazar and the frustrated murder of Margarito Balestramon. The prosecution evidence established that in the early morning of November 5, 1992, after attending a benefit dance, Balestramon and his nephew Baltazar were walking home. Hillado, armed with a Garand rifle, appeared from a street corner, called out to them, and became irked by Balestramon’s respectful reply. As the victims walked away, a gunshot from behind hit Baltazar. While Balestramon was lifting the fallen Baltazar, a second shot hit them both. Balestramon saw Hillado, at close range, aiming the rifle at him. Baltazar died at the scene from two gunshot wounds, while Balestramon survived after medical treatment.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Hillado was at a different barangay attending a meeting and later sleeping at his detachment at the time of the incident. He asserted that the charges were fabricated due to a land dispute between his family and that of the victims.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Hillado’s guilt for murder and frustrated murder beyond reasonable doubt, overcoming his defense of alibi and alleged ill motive of the witnesses.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Margarito Balestramon, who knew Hillado personally and saw him fire the shots from a short distance, prevails over the weak defense of alibi. For alibi to succeed, the accused must prove not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of his being at the crime scene. Hillado failed to do so, as the meeting and detachment he cited were in the same municipality, not precluding his presence at the crime location. The Court found no ill motive for Balestramon to falsely accuse Hillado, and his testimony was clear, consistent, and credible. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated for murder, as the victims were shot from behind without any opportunity to defend themselves. For frustrated murder, the intent to kill was established by the nature of the weapon used and the location of Balestramon’s wound. The penalty for murder was reduced to reclusion perpetua in line with prevailing jurisprudence, and civil indemnities were awarded. The appealed decision was affirmed with modifications to the penalty.