G.R. No. L-31330 June 29, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SALVADOR “BADING” REMOLLO, ESTROPIO “APIONG” REMOLLO, EUGENIO BERINGUEL, INIEGO “EYENG” REMOLLO, and GAUDIOSO TABOSO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of February 9, 1964, Jesus Urgel and his wife Gorgonia were walking home along a provincial road in Leyte. Upon nearing the house of appellant Gaudioso Taboso, they were accosted by all five appellants. Three positioned themselves in front of Urgel, while Taboso and Eugenio Beringuel positioned themselves behind him. After Apiong Remollo asked Urgel for a cigarette, Gaudioso Taboso hacked the victim from behind with a bolo. As Urgel staggered, all five appellants proceeded to attack him with bolos and a scythe. The victim sustained nineteen wounds and died after running a short distance and collapsing. The area was well-illuminated by a flashlight, a petromax lamp from a nearby house, and lamparillas from the appellants’ dwellings, enabling Gorgonia Urgel and other prosecution witnesses to clearly identify all assailants.
Four appellants, except Salvador Remollo, denied participation and interposed alibi. Gaudioso Taboso claimed he was sick at home, corroborated by a witness whose testimony the court found weak and inconsistent. The other appellants’ alibis were uncorroborated and their claimed locations did not make it physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. Salvador Remollo alone admitted the killing but pleaded self-defense, claiming Urgel had previously lost money to him in a cockfight and later ambushed him at his house, forcing him to fight back.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted all five appellants of Murder, rejecting their defenses of alibi and self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the weakness of the defenses juxtaposed with the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. For the four appellants relying on alibi, the defense was unavailing. Alibi is inherently weak and must demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused’s presence at the crime scene. Their alibis failed this test, especially in the face of positive identification by multiple eyewitnesses under good lighting conditions. The court found Gaudioso Taboso’s alibi particularly incredible, noting contradictions in his witnesses’ testimonies and the positive identification of him as the one who initiated the attack.
Regarding Salvador Remollo’s claim of self-defense, the Court applied the principle that one who admits killing must prove by clear and convincing evidence the justifying circumstance. His narrative was illogical and improbable; it was inexplicable why the unarmed victim would ambush him after already retrieving his lost money. The number, nature, and location of the victim’s nineteen wounds were utterly inconsistent with a scenario of lawful self-defense and instead indicated a concerted attack by multiple aggressors against a defenseless person. The Court thus agreed with the trial court’s finding of treachery, qualifying the killing as Murder, and properly imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua.