G.R. No. L-35950 July 30, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNOLD ZURBITO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On June 4, 1961, appellant Arnold Zurbito, armed with a bolo and a scythe, went to the residence of the Masamoc family in Masbate. Finding only the three children—Alejandre Jr. (12), Edison (18), and Elias (2)—he demanded money and threatened to kill them, stating he had already killed three persons. Frightened, Alejandre Jr. jumped out a window and fled. Upon returning with their father, they discovered the lifeless bodies of Edison and Elias in an adjacent field, each bearing 18 incised and stab wounds. Police later found a pair of blood-stained pants hanging on a tree near appellant’s house, leading to his arrest.
Appellant denied the charges, interposing alibi and claiming he was attending to his copra business half a kilometer away. He asserted that his deceased brother, Metudio Zurbito, who had a prior quarrel with the Masamocs, was the actual perpetrator and had confessed to the killings. The defense argued there was no motive for appellant to commit the crime, suggesting the prosecution witnesses falsely implicated him.

ISSUE

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove appellant’s guilt for double murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court correctly relied on a combination of circumstantial evidence that formed an unbroken chain leading to the inescapable conclusion of appellant’s guilt. These circumstances included: appellant’s presence at the crime scene armed with bladed weapons; his expressed threat to kill the children upon not finding their father; his aggressive pursuit of another witness, Antonio Laurio; the nature of the victims’ fatal wounds consistent with such weapons; and the discovery of blood-stained pants near his residence. This collective evidence adequately established the corpus delicti and his identity as the perpetrator.
The Court rejected the defense of alibi. Positive identification by eyewitness Alejandre Masamoc Jr. and Antonio Laurio, who were not shown to have any ill motive to testify falsely, prevails over a weak alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate it was physically impossible to be at the crime scene. Appellant failed to meet this standard. His attempt to shift blame to his deceased brother was also unconvincing; if true, he should have reported the alleged confession to authorities, which he did not do. The judgment of the Court of First Instance imposing two penalties of reclusion perpetua and indemnities was thus affirmed.