G.R. No. 90801 February 13, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO LOZANO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Francisco Lozano, along with Ernesto Morales and Vivencio Somera, was charged with Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder for the shooting death of Ernesto Gazmen, Sr., and the wounding of three others at a cockpit in Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, on March 11, 1984. The prosecution’s primary eyewitness, Ernesto Gazmen, Jr., testified that he clearly saw Lozano, a PC Sergeant at the time, successively shoot his father from behind at close range while the victim was watching a cockfight. He identified Lozano’s companions, Morales and Somera, as also holding their firearms aimed at the victim. The witness positively identified the accused, emphasizing the cockpit was well-illuminated by fluorescent lights, and his testimony was corroborated by other witnesses who were present at the scene.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Lozano was elsewhere during the incident. The trial court convicted Lozano as a co-principal in the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Lozano appealed, challenging the credibility of the eyewitness identification and the sufficiency of the evidence to prove conspiracy and the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Francisco Lozano beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Gazmen, Jr., who had no ill motive to testify falsely, was deemed credible and sufficient to establish Lozano’s criminal liability. The Court emphasized that the well-lighted venue of the crime enabled a clear and accurate identification, which prevails over the weak defense of alibi. For alibi to succeed, the accused must demonstrate it was physically impossible to be at the crime scene; Lozano failed to meet this stringent requirement.
On the finding of conspiracy, the Court upheld the trial court’s conclusion based on the coordinated actions of Lozano and his co-accused in approaching and firing upon the victim, which indicated a common purpose to kill. Treachery was correctly appreciated because the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. However, the Court modified the civil liability, reducing the indemnity to the heirs from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence at the time.