G.R. No. 79811 March 19, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PIO CANTUBA & PEDRITO LALAGUNA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The accused-appellants, Pio Cantuba and Pedrito Lalaguna, were charged with Murder for the killing of Atty. Adolfo Celera on December 23, 1981. The prosecution alleged that the killing was orchestrated due to Atty. Celera’s prior legal opposition to Mayor Moises Espinosa, a co-accused who was later acquitted. The trial court convicted Cantuba and Lalaguna based on the testimonies of key witnesses, including Margie Rotor (the victim’s companion), Romulo Tama (a bystander), and Pat. Rodolfo Torrecampo (a confessed participant turned state witness). Their testimonies detailed a conspiracy where Torrecampo organized the attack, providing weapons and assigning roles. On the night of the crime, Cantuba was identified as the person who signaled the victim’s approach and later fired shots at Atty. Celera as he exited the Sunrise Disco Pub. Lalaguna was identified as the driver of a motorcycle that attempted to run over the fallen victim.
Both appellants raised the defense of alibi, claiming they were playing cards at a house approximately 300 meters away from the crime scene at the time of the incident. They argued that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and challenged the credibility of the witnesses, particularly Torrecampo, whose testimony they claimed was uncorroborated.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellants Pio Cantuba and Pedrito Lalaguna for the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the positive identification of the appellants by credible prosecution witnesses prevailed over their weak defense of alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. The admitted proximity of 300 meters between the card game location and the disco pub negated any claim of physical impossibility, rendering their alibi unworthy of credit.
The Court further ruled that conspiracy was sufficiently established. Conspiracy exists when the accused have a common purpose and are united in its execution. The evidence showed a coordinated plan: Cantuba acted as a lookout and gunman, while Lalaguna, by driving the motorcycle toward the victim, demonstrated a shared criminal intent to ensure the victim’s death. His act was not an “equivocal act” when viewed in the context of the entire criminal design, as testified to by multiple witnesses. The collective testimonies of Rotor, Tama, and Torrecampo provided a coherent and corroborated narrative of the conspiracy and the individual participation of each appellant. The trial court correctly relied on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. Consequently, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awarded indemnity were upheld.