G.R. No. 124980 May 12, 1999
People of the Philippines vs. Freddie Balisoro and Jorgie Dionzon/Dionzon

FACTS

On April 25, 1993, during a benefit dance in Norala, South Cotabato, Glenn Catalan was fatally shot at the back of his head. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses William Solomon and Rex Jordan. Solomon testified that he saw accused Jorgie Dionzon hand a short gun to accused Freddie Balisoro. Balisoro then approached the victim from behind and shot him. Solomon, who was urinating nearby, turned upon hearing the gunshot and saw Balisoro still pointing the gun at the fallen victim. Rex Jordan similarly testified that he heard a gunshot, turned, and saw the victim lying down with Balisoro pointing a gun at him and Dionzon acting as a lookout. The victim was declared dead on arrival at the hospital.
The accused interposed the defense of alibi. Balisoro claimed he was at his home, three kilometers away, sleeping at the time of the incident. He presented witnesses, including his father and a visitor, to corroborate his presence at home. Dionzon similarly denied involvement, alleging he was elsewhere. They argued that the eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent and motivated by a prior feud involving their relatives.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Freddie Balisoro for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt, despite his defense of alibi and challenges to the credibility of the eyewitness accounts.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Solomon and Jordan to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish Balisoro’s guilt. Both witnesses positively identified Balisoro as the shooter and provided corroborative details of the event, including Dionzon’s role. The Court emphasized that alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses. For alibi to succeed, the accused must demonstrate not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of his being at the crime scene. Balisoro failed this test, as he admitted the crime scene was only a 15-minute bike ride from his home.
The Court dismissed alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies as minor and not pertaining to the central fact of the shooting. Their initial failure to immediately report to the police was deemed not fatal, as it is not uncommon for witnesses to be reluctant. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated, as the attack from behind on an unarmed and unsuspecting victim ensured its execution without risk to the assailant. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing the civil indemnity but reducing the actual damages due to insufficient receipted evidence.