GR 80405; (November, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 80405 November 24, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNEL MITRA and DENNIS ABADILLA, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused Arnel Mitra and Dennis Abadilla were charged with Murder for the killing of Nestor Burac on March 30, 1986, in Lucena City. The prosecution evidence established that an altercation occurred earlier that day between two picnic groups at the Alitao River, involving Ildefonso Catamio (Burac’s father-in-law) and Nena Mañago, whose group included the appellants and Victor Garganta. The dispute concerned a tenancy claim on land owned by Mitra’s father. Mitra challenged Catamio’s group to a fight, which Burac accepted but was restrained. Later, as Burac’s group waited for transportation on the national highway, the appellants and Garganta arrived. Garganta stabbed Burac from behind. As Burac fled and fell, Abadilla hit him on the head with a stone while Mitra encouraged the attack, uttering “sige, sige, iyan ang patayin mo.” Garganta continued the stabbing.
The appellants denied involvement, presenting an alibi that they were picnicking elsewhere and only learned of the killing later. They claimed no motive to kill Burac, whom they did not know personally, and alleged the actual perpetrators were Garganta and a certain “Jun.” They also questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, suggesting ill motives.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of appellants Arnel Mitra and Dennis Abadilla for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification of the appellants by eyewitnesses, including the victim’s wife and son, who had no ill motive to falsely testify, prevails over the defense of alibi and denial. The Court found the witnesses’ testimonies clear, consistent, and credible, detailing the appellants’ active participation. Mitra’s earlier challenge and his exhortation during the attack, coupled with Abadilla’s act of hitting the victim with a stone, established conspiracy. The appellants acted in concert with Garganta to accomplish the common purpose of killing Burac.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as it was not physically impossible for the appellants to be at the crime scene; they were within the vicinity. The claim of witness retraction was deemed an afterthought, not newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial, as the witnesses had already been thoroughly cross-examined. Motive is not essential for conviction when there is direct and positive identification of the perpetrators. The trial court’s findings on credibility are accorded high respect. Thus, the judgment of conviction was affirmed in toto.