G.R. No. 75618, December 29, 1989
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO MARMITA JR., accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on the night of June 11, 1983, during a public dance in Barangay San Vicente, Leyte, Nathaniel Quinones was shot dead. Eyewitnesses Tomas Quinones and Edgar Pulga positively identified the accused-appellant, Alfredo Marmita Jr., as the assailant who fired the fatal shots. Tomas testified that he saw Marmita standing over the fallen victim and firing additional shots. The victim, before dying, allegedly identified his attacker as “Ette,” referring to Marmita. The prosecution presented evidence of a motive rooted in business rivalry over the illegal numbers game “masiao,” with Quinones belonging to a group opposed to Marmita’s operations.
The defense relied on alibi, with Marmita claiming he was at his residence in Jaro, Leyte, supervising the unloading of construction materials at the time of the crime. His alibi was corroborated by several police officers. The defense also attacked the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, pointing to inconsistencies such as Tomas Quinones’s initial statements to police naming other suspects and the alleged impossibility of the dying declaration given testimony that the victim had lost his power of speech.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt, overcoming his defense of alibi and challenging the credibility of the eyewitness accounts.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses, Tomas Quinones and Edgar Pulga, to be credible and consistent on the material point of positively identifying Marmita as the shooter. Their accounts were deemed more reliable than the accused’s alibi. The Court noted the established motive of rivalry in the “masiao” operations, which made the accusation plausible, whereas Marmita’s claim that the hostility stemmed merely from envy was deemed unconvincing.
The defense of alibi was rejected as inherently weak. The Court found it suspicious that all corroborating witnesses were policemen, suggesting possible influence given Marmita’s purported status as a local gambling figure. Furthermore, the distance of three kilometers between the crime scene and Marmita’s residence was easily negotiable, rendering his alibi non-improbable. The alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, such as the initial statements of Tomas Quinones to other police officers, were considered minor and did not destroy the witnesses’ core credibility regarding their direct observation of the crime.
The killing was correctly qualified as murder due to the presence of treachery, as the victim was shot in the back and again while already prostrate and helpless. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of civil indemnity were thus affirmed. The Court took the opportunity to admonish the trial judge for a careless error regarding a paraffin test and to comment on the social blight of “masiao” in Leyte.