G.R. No. 97258 November 24, 1995
People of the Philippines vs. Atanacio Tahum, Sr. and Esdras Tahum

FACTS

This case arose from a family vendetta. In 1988, Isaias Tahum was killed in a strafing incident, which his family attributed to Balson Valencia. The Tahum family, including appellants Atanacio Sr. and Esdras, subsequently moved to another barangay. On June 26, 1989, Edrin Valencia, Balson’s younger brother, was warned by a friend, Candelario Sidro, that the Tahums were seen back in their old house, drinking and conversing seriously. Heeding the warning, Edrin went home with Antonio Aguilar. Hemenias Tahum then attacked Edrin with a shotgun, after which Noli Tahum stabbed him. Appellants Atanacio Sr. and Esdras, along with Atanacio Jr., then joined in stabbing the victim. Eyewitnesses Antonio Aguilar and tricycle driver Adelfredo Jomento positively identified the assailants. Edrin died from multiple stab and pellet wounds.
The Tahums were charged with murder. At trial, appellants denied participation, presenting an alibi that they were at a barangay captain’s house assisting in preparations for a death anniversary. They also denied knowing who killed Isaias. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellants Atanacio Sr. and Esdras of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Their co-accused remained at large.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of appellants for murder based on conspiracy and positive identification, and in rejecting their defenses of alibi and lack of motive.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found conspiracy was sufficiently established by the appellants’ coordinated actions before, during, and after the crime. Candelario Sidro’s testimony placed them planning at their old house. Eyewitnesses Aguilar and Jomento clearly saw appellants participate in the concerted attack. Conspiracy makes the act of one the act of all. The appellants’ motive for revenge against the Valencia family was evident from the antecedent killing of Isaias, and Edrin became a substitute target in his brother Balson’s absence.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove it was physically impossible to be at the crime scene. The appellants failed to do so, as the distance between locations was negotiable by motorized boat in about an hour. Their alibi was weak against the positive identification by credible witnesses with no ill motive. The penalty was modified from “life imprisonment” to reclusion perpetua, as the former is imposed under special laws, not the Revised Penal Code under which murder is punished. The decision was affirmed with this modification.