G.R. No. L-38936. January 22, 1981.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMUALDO BATTUNG JR. Y ASIS and SEVERINO TAGUINOD Y DEPOLONIA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves the murder of Segundino Danga, a policeman from Solana, Cagayan, on September 11, 1965. The killing stemmed from intense political rivalry, as Danga had switched allegiance from Congressman Ligot to Congressman Puzon. That evening, appellants Romualdo Battung Jr. and Severino Taguinod, along with an accomplice named Erning, were seen heavily armed at the house of ex-mayor Caronan, a Ligot supporter, where a plan to liquidate Danga was allegedly discussed. The victim was later ambushed while waiting at a ferry boat. Eyewitnesses—ferry workers Victoriano Guizagan, Sergio Zalun, and Marcelino Gaya—positively identified Battung and Taguinod as among those who suddenly approached and shot Danga multiple times. The witnesses initially remained silent due to fear but gave statements after the declaration of martial law.
Appellant Battung interposed an alibi, claiming he was attending a security meeting in Barrio Bauan, approximately 9-10 kilometers away, at the time of the killing. He presented corroborating testimony from Justiniano Tallud, who claimed to be the barrio captain. The trial court found this alibi unpersuasive, noting the proximity of Bauan allowed for travel to and from the crime scene. The court also discredited Tallud’s testimony after evidence showed he falsely represented himself as the barrio captain, the actual captain being Marciano Carag.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based on the eyewitness identification and in rejecting the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence against the inherent weakness of the defense. The positive identification by three eyewitnesses, who had a clear view of the appellants under a bright moon and ferry boat lights, prevails over the unsubstantiated alibi. The Court emphasized that for an alibi to succeed, it must be physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene. Here, Bauan was only 9-10 kilometers away, making it not only possible but feasible for Battung to have committed the crime and returned. The falsity in the testimony of his corroborating witness further destroyed the alibi’s credibility.
The crime was properly classified as murder, qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and afforded the victim no chance to defend himself. The Court found no reversible error in the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility and its factual findings. The culpability of both appellants was established beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty imposed by the lower court was affirmed.