G.R. No. L-29201. January 31, 1974.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. APOLONIO OBNGAYAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On March 10, 1967, in Barrio Mañosa, Villaviciosa, Abra, Pedro Bagay was shot while goading his carabao. His wife, Alingan Bagay, who was less than a meter away, heard the gunshot and saw appellant Apolonio Obngayan standing in an open field less than 30 meters away, holding a gun resembling a .30 carbine. Appellant fled with two unarmed companions. The victim was brought to a clinic where he gave an ante mortem statement, pointing to appellant as the assailant before he died the next morning. The autopsy confirmed he was shot from behind. A criminal complaint for murder was filed against appellant and two others.
At trial, the prosecution presented the eyewitness testimony of Alingan Bagay and the victim’s ante mortem statement. The defense of appellant was alibi, claiming he was constructing a fence near his house in an adjacent barrio at the time. He presented no corroborating evidence. The trial court convicted appellant of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, acquitting his two co-accused for lack of evidence.

ISSUE

The main issues were: (1) whether irregularities in the preliminary investigation vitiated the proceedings; (2) whether the trial judge exhibited bias through his questioning; and (3) whether the trial court erred in crediting the prosecution’s evidence over the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, any defect in the preliminary investigation was deemed cured when appellant entered a plea during arraignment and participated in the trial without raising the objection earlier. The right to a preliminary investigation is not a fundamental right and can be waived.
On the second issue, the active participation of the trial judge in propounding questions to clarify testimony and expedite the proceedings does not indicate bias or partiality. A judge is not a mere passive referee; he may actively intervene to ascertain the truth, provided he does so with impartiality. The record showed the judge’s questions were aimed at clarifying facts, not aiding the prosecution.
On the third and central issue, the Court found the prosecution’s evidence conclusive. The positive identification by the eyewitness, who had a clear view of the appellant, was credible and convincing. Her testimony was consistent and corroborated by the physical evidence and the ante mortem dying declaration of the victim. In contrast, the defense of alibi was inherently weak, uncorroborated, and could not prevail over the positive identification. The crime was qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and from behind, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, but the civil indemnity was increased to P12,000.00.