G.R. No. 85951 March 24, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALVARO SUITOS, @ “BARANG,” (WILSON SUITOS, VIC SUITOS, REY VILLAR), At large, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alvaro Suitos, along with others (Wilson Suitos, Vic Suitos, and Boy Villar), was charged with Murder with the Use of Unlicensed Firearms for the killing of Jesus Ylarde on September 5, 1987, in Umingan, Pangasinan. The information alleged conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation. Upon arraignment, Alvaro Suitos pleaded not guilty. Trial proceeded only against him as the other accused remained at large. The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the eyewitness accounts of the victim’s daughters, Jovy Ylarde and Vivian Ylarde. Jovy testified that while she was conversing with her father in front of their store, three men—Wilson Suitos, Alvaro Suitos (Barang), and Boy Villar—approached and shot her father in succession. Vivian corroborated this, stating she heard shots, went out, and saw the three accused fleeing after the shooting. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Alvaro was at home having supper and watching TV at the time of the incident, supported by his neighbor and common-law wife. The Regional Trial Court convicted Alvaro Suitos of Murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in not crediting his alibi and in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to the defense of alibi.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Alvaro Suitos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the indemnity awarded. The Court held that the positive identification by the eyewitnesses, Jovy and Vivian Ylarde, who knew the appellant long before the incident and testified clearly and consistently, prevailed over the defense of alibi. The relationship of the witnesses to the victim does not automatically discredit their testimony, and the trial court’s assessment of their credibility is entitled to great weight. The Court found that treachery was present as the attack was sudden and without warning, ensuring the victim had no chance to defend himself. The defense of alibi was weak and not physically impossible to be at the crime scene. The Court modified the damages: actual damages reduced to P11,575 (as proven), death indemnity set at P50,000, loss of earning capacity calculated at P320,000 (using the formula 2/3 x (80-49) x annual net income of P16,000), and moral damages reduced to P20,000. The decision of the trial court was AFFIRMED with these modifications.