G.R. No. 129212; September 14, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO LACUESTA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case originated from a dispute over a stolen fighting cock. Danilo Panes borrowed a cock from accused-appellant Mario Lacuesta. At a cockfight, the cock was recognized by its true owner, Elmer Piccio, who confronted Danilo. Danilo pointed to Lacuesta as the source. Elmer then confronted Lacuesta, leading to Lacuesta’s embarrassment. On the evening of August 3, 1994, Danilo, Nestor Mata, and Elnora Latumbo were walking home. Elnora momentarily left to relieve herself. A volley of shots was then heard. Nestor was killed, and Danilo was wounded. Danilo and Elnora identified the assailants as Mario Lacuesta, his brother Richard, and their cousins Ali and Rodnie Lamela, all armed with shotguns. Danilo heard Lacuesta say, “he is not the one,” after checking Nestor’s body.
Lacuesta interposed an alibi, claiming he was drinking at home with Dominador Lara, about a kilometer away, at the time of the incident. The defense also presented witnesses to discredit Elnora’s presence at the scene. The trial court convicted Lacuesta of murder and frustrated murder. The co-accused remained at large.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Lacuesta’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, overcoming his defense of alibi and challenging the credibility of the eyewitnesses.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Danilo Panes and Elnora Latumbo credible, consistent, and positive. Their identification of Lacuesta was reliable, as the night was illuminated by flashlights and moonlight. The trivial motive stemming from the cockfight embarrassment was deemed sufficient to establish a reason for the attack. The Court emphasized that alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Lacuesta failed this test, as he admitted the distance from his house to the crime scene was traversable in five to ten minutes, making his presence there physically possible. The defense witnesses’ testimonies were found unconvincing and failed to discredit the clear and categorical accounts of the eyewitnesses. The Court modified the penalty for frustrated murder, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and affirmed the award of civil indemnity and damages.