G.R. No. 123072 October 14, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CADIZ LAPAY, ANECITO LAPAY, MARIO LAPAY, PANCHITO VILLANUEVA, SEGUNDO OLBES, ROGELIO RETEZA, EMILIANO CRISOSTOMO, BASILIO GENEROSA, RUDY CONSTANTINO and PAYLITO TORRECAMPO, accused, CADIZ LAPAY, appellant.

FACTS

On November 28, 1984, three separate Informations for murder were filed against appellant Cadiz Lapay and several others for the killing of Nelson Dumasis, Rosario Sellado, and Juan Sellado on or about August 13, 1984, in San Vicente, Davao. The accused, including appellant, pleaded not guilty. Some accused escaped after arraignment, and charges against Basilio Generosa and Paylito Torrecampo were dismissed. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted appellant Cadiz Lapay and Mario Lapay of three counts of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua per count. Mario Lapay’s appeal was dismissed due to his escape, leaving only Cadiz Lapay’s appeal.
The prosecution’s case relied on eyewitnesses Cornelio Valencia and Catalina Barrun. Valencia testified that on the evening of August 12, 1984, he saw Anecito Lapay signal to a group of men, including appellant Cadiz Lapay and Mario Lapay, who then proceeded to the Sellado house. He witnessed Cadiz and Mario Lapay, armed with a carbine, shoot Rosario Sellado, Juan Sellado, and Nelson Dumasis. He identified them by moonlight and house light, and heard Juan Sellado name Mario and Cadiz as his assailants. Barrun testified that she saw Cadiz and Mario Lapay approach the Sellado house, heard Cadiz mention a court summons, and then heard gunbursts from the house. She saw them chase another person and confirmed they shot the victims.
The defense presented appellant Cadiz Lapay, who denied involvement, claiming he was at home sick with a swollen right hand and could not carry or fire a rifle. He presented Crestito Pitaw to corroborate his alibi.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Cadiz Lapay of murder based on the eyewitness testimonies, despite his defense of alibi and denial.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. The positive identification of appellant by two eyewitnesses, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, prevails over his denial and alibi. The defense of alibi is weak and cannot stand against positive identification. The court found the testimonies of Valencia and Barrun clear, consistent, and credible, providing sufficient basis for conviction. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, as the attack was sudden and without warning, ensuring the victims had no chance to defend themselves. The court upheld the penalties and damages imposed by the trial court.