G.R. No. 137676 September 27, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ATTY. ROBERTO DIONISIO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On January 25, 1996, around 7:00 p.m., Raul Borlongan was drinking with friends in the yard of his rented house in Malolos, Bulacan. A white car stopped, and Atty. Roberto Dionisio, along with Nestor Gulperic and William Ramos, alighted. Dionisio immediately entered the yard and shot Borlongan in the head. Gulperic and Ramos then successively fired at the victim, hitting him on various parts of his body. The assailants fled, and Borlongan was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. The autopsy revealed three gunshot wounds, with two fatal bullets recovered from his body.
The three accused denied involvement and raised alibi as their defense. Dionisio claimed he was at a drinking session in Ligas, Malolos, ten to twelve kilometers away, during the time of the incident, a claim corroborated by two friends. Gulperic asserted he was bedridden at home due to a kidney ailment. Ramos testified he was at his mother’s house in Bustos, Bulacan. The Regional Trial Court found all three guilty of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Dionisio appealed.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Atty. Roberto Dionisio beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in overcoming his defense of alibi with positive identification.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by credible eyewitnesses. In this case, prosecution witnesses clearly and consistently identified Dionisio as the one who first shot the victim at close range. The Court found no ill motive for these witnesses to falsely testify against the appellant. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene. Dionisio’s claimed location was merely ten to twelve kilometers away, a distance not constituting physical impossibility. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated as the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus proper. The Court modified the civil liability, ordering Dionisio to pay an additional P25,000.00 as exemplary damages due to the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance.