GR 96714; (January, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96714 . January 27, 1992.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OSCAR DIQUIT and RODRIGO TAMBIOCO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
The accused-appellants, Oscar Diquit and Rodrigo Tambioco, were convicted of murder for the killing of Patrolman Manuel Atienza. The prosecution evidence established that on April 23, 1988, in Naic, Cavite, three men, including the appellants, inquired from the victim’s mother about his whereabouts. Shortly after, the victim was walking home with his brother, Rolando Juco, when the same three men emerged, blocked their path, and shot the victim. Rolando Juco, an eyewitness, positively identified Diquit as one of the triggermen and Tambioco as their companion. The autopsy confirmed the victim died from gunshot wounds from two firearms.
The defense consisted of alibi and denial. Diquit claimed he was in Pasay City helping construct a house, while Tambioco alleged he was in Ternate, Cavite, preparing food. They were arrested over a year later in Pasay City pursuant to a warrant issued after they failed to submit counter-affidavits during the preliminary investigation and had fled.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants of murder based on the eyewitness identification and in rejecting their defenses.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Rolando Juco, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, prevails over the weak defenses of alibi and denial. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only their presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. The appellants failed to prove this impossibility, as Pasay City and Ternate, Cavite, are not so distant from Naic as to preclude their presence. Their flight after the issuance of the subpoena and their failure to question the legality of their arrest before trial are indications of guilt and a waiver of any procedural objections. The Court modified the penalty, clarifying that reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty without minimum, medium, or maximum periods. The appellants were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay indemnity and actual damages solidarily.