GR 127575; (March, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127575. March 3, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HONORIO CANTERE Y PESTIILOS, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Honorio Cantere was charged with Murder for the killing of Roberto Nogra on December 22, 1991, in Quezon City. The Information alleged that Cantere, conspiring with a John Doe later identified as Raquel Vergara, shot the victim with treachery and evident premeditation. During the trial, the prosecution presented eyewitnesses who testified that they saw Vergara shoot Nogra at a basketball court while the victim’s back was turned. After the shooting, Vergara fled on a motorcycle driven by Cantere. The witnesses positively identified Cantere as the driver, noting they had known him for years.
The defense interposed alibi, with Cantere claiming he was at his home in Novaliches, approximately ten kilometers away, at the time of the incident. He presented several witnesses to corroborate his presence elsewhere. The Regional Trial Court convicted Cantere of Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in convicting him due to reasonable doubt concerning his identity and participation.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Honorio Cantere of Murder despite his defense of alibi and claim of reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification of the accused by credible eyewitnesses. The prosecution witnesses consistently testified that they saw Cantere driving the motorcycle used by the gunman as a getaway vehicle immediately after the shooting. Their familiarity with Cantere over several years rendered their identification reliable and negated any possibility of mistaken identity.
Furthermore, the Court found conspiracy between Cantere and Vergara. Cantere’s act of driving Vergara to the scene, waiting during the commission of the crime, and facilitating their escape demonstrated a community of criminal purpose. Conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime, making each co-conspirator equally liable for the acts of the other. The distance between Cantere’s alleged location and the crime scene did not constitute physical impossibility for his presence there, especially in light of the strong positive identification. Thus, his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.