GR 134483; (January, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134483 ; January 16, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMBROSIO CONDE, JR., ELEAZAR CONDE, VICENTE CONDE, SR., and EUSEBIO CONDE, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of September 17, 1995, Alberto Romero was seated in the kitchen of his mother-in-law’s house in Claveria, Masbate, conversing with his wife Jelita and sister-in-law Flory Bino. The four accused-appellants—Ambrosio Conde, Jr., Eleazar Conde, Vicente Conde, Sr., and Eusebio Conde—suddenly appeared. By the light of a kerosene lamp, the two women witnessed Ambrosio hold Alberto’s head while Eleazar stabbed him with a bolo. Vicente Sr. and Eusebio stood by. Alberto managed to flee downhill, with the four accused giving chase. His body was found the next day with multiple fatal stab and hack wounds.
The accused interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. Vicente Conde, Sr., claimed he was at the municipal police station from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM that evening to secure the release of another son. Eusebio Conde alleged he was at home in a different sitio. Their testimonies were corroborated by police officers and relatives. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness accounts of Jelita Romero and Flory Bino.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt, overcoming their defenses of alibi and denial.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by the two eyewitnesses, who knew the appellants well and recognized them under adequate illumination from a kerosene lamp, prevails over the weak defenses of alibi and denial. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only their presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. The trial court correctly found no such impossibility, as the police station where Vicente Sr. claimed to be was less than two kilometers from the crime scene, and Eusebio’s home was also within the same municipality. Denial, being inherently weak, cannot stand against credible positive testimony.
The Court sustained the finding of conspiracy, inferred from the appellants’ collective and simultaneous arrival at the scene, their coordinated actions during the attack, and their joint pursuit of the victim. However, the Court modified the trial court’s ruling by disallowing the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. The prosecution failed to prove that nighttime was specially sought by the offenders or that it was taken advantage of to facilitate the crime. Consequently, the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of murder was affirmed, but without the erroneous appreciation of nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.