G.R. No. L-38603 September 30, 1982
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Paciano Chavez, Ernesto Chavez, Estelito Formanes, and Alexander Dollisen, accused, Alexander Dollisen, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alexander Dollisen, along with Paciano Chavez, Ernesto Chavez, and Estelito Formanes, were charged with the murder of Zacarias Narvadez. The information alleged that on August 23, 1971, in Matnog, Sorsogon, the four accused, armed with bolos, conspired to attack the victim from behind with treachery and evident premeditation, inflicting thirty-eight wounds which caused his death. The prosecution evidence established that the victim, a landowner, was marking coconut trees on his farm when Paciano Chavez confronted him. Paciano suddenly hacked the victim from behind, after which he called his companions. Estelito Formanes, Ernesto Chavez, and Alexander Dollisen then joined in assaulting the unarmed Narvadez.
The defense, particularly for appellant Dollisen, interposed denial and alibi. Dollisen claimed he was in Barrio Sisigon, approximately 16 kilometers away, on an errand at the time of the incident. He asserted that the testimonies implicating him were fabricated. The trial court convicted all accused, sentencing Ernesto Chavez and Alexander Dollisen to reclusion perpetua. Only Dollisen appealed the decision.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Alexander Dollisen for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution evidence, particularly the positive identification by eyewitness Antonio Narvadez, credible and sufficient. The witness clearly testified that after Paciano initiated the attack, he called his companions, and appellant Dollisen, along with Ernesto Chavez, arrived and proceeded to bolo and stab the victim. The Court rejected Dollisen’s defense of alibi. For alibi to prevail, it must demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused being at the crime scene. The Court noted that Barrio Sisigon was not too remote, being a mere 30-minute bus ride away, thus not precluding his presence at the scene. Alibi cannot overcome positive identification.
Furthermore, the Court considered the withdrawal of the appeal by his co-accused Ernesto Chavez and the failure of Paciano Chavez and Estelito Formanes to appeal as an acquiescence to the veracity of the prosecution’s narrative. On the qualifying and aggravating circumstances, the Court upheld the presence of treachery due to the sudden and collective attack by four armed men on an unarmed victim. However, it ruled that the aggravating circumstance of superior strength was absorbed in treachery. Evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven, and cruelty was not established, as the numerous wounds resulted from the fury of the assault rather than a deliberate intent to prolong suffering. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus affirmed.