G.R. No. L-37107. April 27, 1982.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAULINO MORALES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Paulino Morales, was convicted of murder for the killing of Ricarido Mandate. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of Victor Mandate, the victim’s father. He testified that on the evening of December 26, 1971, after dining together, he, his son, and the Morales brothers (Paulino and Ludovico) were walking. Paulino was armed with a homemade gun and Ludovico with a knife. Without warning, Paulino shot Ricarido, who fell. Ludovico then stabbed the fallen victim, after which Paulino fired a second shot. Victor, who was walking a short distance behind, witnessed the entire incident out of fear. The post-mortem examination confirmed fatal injuries, including a skull fracture and multiple pellet and stab wounds.
The defense interposed alibi, with the appellant and his relatives testifying he was at home in a different barangay, five kilometers away, at the time of the crime. After conviction, the appellant filed a motion for new trial based on the alleged newly discovered evidence of Victor Mandate’s retraction of his testimony. The trial court denied this motion, prompting the appeal challenging both the judgment of conviction and the denial of the new trial.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial based on a witness’s recantation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The commission of murder was clearly established through the positive and credible testimony of Victor Mandate. The attack was characterized by treachery (alevosia), as the victim was suddenly shot without any opportunity to defend himself. The circumstance of abuse of superior strength was deemed absorbed by treachery. The Court found the witness’s identification of the appellant as one of the assailants to be reliable, given his prior acquaintance with them, the clear night, and the proximity during the walk. No improper motive was shown for Victor to falsely testify against the appellant.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. Alibi is inherently weak against positive identification, especially when established only by the accused and his close relatives. Furthermore, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial. Retractions are viewed with extreme caution, as they are unreliable and can make a mockery of the judicial process. The Court held that a new trial based solely on an affidavit of recantation, which seeks to absolve the accused, is dangerous and susceptible to manipulation, possibly for monetary consideration. Thus, the judgment of conviction and the order denying the new trial were affirmed in toto.