G.R. Nos. L-38907-09 November 14, 1988
NERIO BELVIS III, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nerio Belvis III, along with Rodolfo Donate and Antonio Reyes, was charged with robbery and murder. The cases were jointly tried. Belvis was acquitted of robbery but convicted of homicide by the trial court. He and Donate appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction and even increased their penalties. Only Belvis appealed to the Supreme Court.
The prosecution evidence established that on March 13, 1972, taxi driver Geronimo Maderal was robbed by four individuals, including Belvis and the victim, Hermenegildo Monta (Peklat). After the robbery, Maderal alighted and reported the incident. Shortly after, Patrolman Oscar Rosal heard gunshots. He encountered Belvis and Reyes fleeing, with Belvis holding a gun. Rosal later found Peklat dead beside a taxicab, shot eight times. Belvis, Reyes, and Donate were subsequently apprehended by the police.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Nerio Belvis III’s conviction for homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the sufficiency of evidence establishing Belvis’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly Patrolman Rosal and taxi driver Maderal, to be credible and consistent. Rosal’s testimony directly placed Belvis at the scene fleeing with a gun immediately after the shots were fired that killed Peklat. This, coupled with Maderal’s account of the preceding robbery involving the same group, formed a coherent narrative of events leading to the homicide.
The Court rejected Belvis’s defenses, including his alibi and his challenge to the admissibility of his co-accused’s extrajudicial confessions. The ruling emphasized that an alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the confessions of co-accused Donate and Reyes were properly considered by the trial court only against the declarants themselves, in accordance with the rule on res inter alios acta, and not as direct evidence against Belvis. His conviction was sustained based on the independent and strong circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, which included his presence at the crime scene, possession of a firearm, and immediate flight—conduct indicative of guilt. No reversible error was found in the appellate court’s assessment of the evidence and application of the law.