G.R. No. 82727 -28. April 7, 1993.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESARIO VILLAGRACIA, NESTOR RAGUT AND REY MARO, accused, CESARIO VILLAGRACIA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Two informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite, charging Cesario Villagracia and others with Murder and Frustrated Murder. The charges stemmed from an incident on June 16, 1985, in Bacoor, Cavite. Prosecution witness Lilia Adonis Antivo testified that around 8:00 PM, someone knocked on the door of her brother Federico Adonis’s house. Restituto Castillo, who was inside, opened the door and was suddenly stabbed by accused-appellant Cesario Villagracia. Nestor Ragut then followed by stabbing Federico Adonis. Lilia Antivo witnessed the events from her house, which was beside her brother’s, and was about a meter away. Restituto Castillo died on the spot, while Federico Adonis survived after medical treatment. Accused-appellant raised the defense of alibi, claiming he was at the house of a certain Jun Oredon at the time and only learned of the incident from his wife upon returning home at 10:00 PM. The trial court convicted Villagracia of Murder and Frustrated Murder, while acquitting his co-accused Apolinario Roquino, Judito Toston, Angelito Toston, and Elpidio Espedilla on reasonable doubt. Nestor Ragut and Rey Maro remained at large.

ISSUE

The main issues revolve around the credibility of the eyewitness testimony, the admissibility of a dying declaration as part of res gestae, the validity of the defense of alibi against positive identification, the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and the existence of conspiracy.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. The Court held:
1. The testimony of eyewitness Lilia Antivo was credible. She was about a meter away from the crime scene and testified with accuracy and certainty.
2. The statement of the victim, Restituto Castillo, identifying appellant as his assailant, though not a valid dying declaration, was admissible as part of the res gestae, as it was made under the influence of a startling occurrence with no time to concoct.
3. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witness. The appellant’s claim was not corroborated, and the testimony of his wife was deemed biased.
4. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present. The attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself, thereby ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant.
5. Conspiracy between appellant and Nestor Ragut was evident. Their acts of knocking on the door together and successively attacking the victims indicated a joint purpose and design, inferable from their simultaneous actions.
The Court modified the indemnity to the heirs of Restituto Castillo, increasing it to P50,000.00.