G.R. No. L-32102. February 10, 1986.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABUBAKAR ASIL, alias ABUBAKAR PONGA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of May 7, 1968, Arturo Hofer, a municipal councilor, was at the wharf in Cotabato City intending to board a passenger launch. A group of persons shot him several times, causing him to fall into the water. He died from massive hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot wounds which destroyed vital organs, including three chest wounds and a slashed liver. Eyewitnesses Luminog Dimaporo and Corazon Oasan positively identified accused-appellant Abubakar Asil as one of the assailants. The prosecution established a motive of revenge, as Hofer had previously won an ejectment case against a certain Akob Ontal, and a member of the Ontal family had been killed in the related land dispute.
The accused denied involvement, presenting an alibi that he was walking behind a patrolman when he heard gunshots and merely proceeded to the wharf where a crowd had gathered around Hofer’s body. The trial court found this alibi flimsy and unworthy of credence. On appeal, the defense contended the trial court erred in ignoring alleged lies and contradictions in the eyewitness testimonies and in not giving weight to the appellant’s alibi.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of murder based on the eyewitness identification and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the established principles of evaluating evidence and qualifying the crime. The positive identification by two eyewitnesses, who had no prior grudge against the accused and did not know him before the incident, prevails over the weak defense of alibi. Alibi is inherently a weak defense and must be established by clear and convincing evidence, which the appellant failed to provide. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect, as it is in a better position to observe demeanor.
Furthermore, the killing was qualified as murder due to the presence of alevosia or treachery. The attack was sudden, from behind, and directed at a defenseless victim who was given no opportunity to defend himself, thereby ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants. This manner of execution squarely meets the legal definition of treachery. The Court modified the civil liability by increasing the indemnity to P30,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The judgment of the trial court was thus affirmed with modification.