G.R. No. L-17773 May 19, 1966
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. EMETERIO ORZAME, ET AL., defendants. EMETERIO ORZAME, defendant and appellant.

FACTS

Emeterio Orzame, Dominador Magno, and Arturo Gallarde were charged with murder for the death of Juan Dulay. Dominador Magno was discharged to become a state witness. Arturo Gallarde was acquitted after the prosecution rested. Emeterio Orzame was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The evidence established that on February 17, 1958, Orzame, Gallarde, and Magno planned to kill Dulay, with Orzame as the sole beneficiary of Dulay’s P3,000 life insurance, to share the proceeds. On February 23, 1958, they met the victim at a town fiesta. They proceeded to the outskirts where Orzame, using a Thompson sub-machine gun taken from a bag, struck the seated Dulay on the head, causing instant death. The body was then taken to another location, subjected to further beatings and stabbings, and placed on railroad tracks to simulate a train accident. Orzame’s defense was alibi, claiming he was sick with lobar pneumonia and was treated at home by a doctor on the night of the crime. The trial court found his alibi not credible, noting his demeanor on the stand, his payment of the insurance premiums, the weak motive for Magno to falsely testify, and the confiscation of the murder weapon from Orzame.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Emeterio Orzame of murder based on the evidence presented, particularly the credibility of the state witness and the rejection of the alibi defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, including its doubt of Orzame’s alibi due to his restless and trembling demeanor on the stand, is accorded respect. Alibi is a weak defense and must be established by clear and convincing evidence; it cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by a witness. The testimony of state witness Dominador Magno, though uncorroborated, is credible and sufficient for conviction, especially as his account was consistent with his prior affidavit and preliminary investigation testimony given before his discharge. His testimony was corroborated by the autopsy findings, which detailed severe head trauma and stab wounds consistent with Magno’s account of the attack with a sub-machine gun and a knife. The court found the evidence proved the crime of murder qualified by evident premeditation, with the aggravating circumstances of treachery and unnecessary cruelty. The decision of the trial court was affirmed.