G.R. No. L-4165; August 28, 1952
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Severino Ganiban, et al., defendants. Severino Ganiban, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

An information for robbery in band with murder was filed against Severino Ganiban, Pio Balicoco, Tomas Mateo, and Benjamin Ganut. During trial, the prosecution moved to exclude Benjamin Ganut from the information to use him as a government witness, which the court granted over the defense’s objection. After the prosecution rested, the court dismissed the case against Tomas Mateo and Pio Balicoco for lack of a prima facie case but proceeded with the trial against Severino Ganiban. The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte found Ganiban guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, indemnification, and costs. Ganiban appealed.
The evidence established that at around 11:30 PM on December 9, 1949, four men with faces covered by handkerchiefs entered the house of Valentin Malvecino. One was armed with a Thompson gun. They tied up Justo Molina (Malvecino’s son-in-law) and brought him to the sala where Malvecino and his wife Fulgencia Rasay were sleeping. The intruders ransacked trunks, taking watches and flashlights. When Malvecino said he had no money, the armed person shot him. Malvecino freed his hands, struck one assailant with a club, and was then shot four more times, leading to his death. The malefactors fled. Justo Molina and Fulgencia Rasay witnessed the events but could not identify the assailants due to their covered faces.
Benjamin Ganut, the excluded co-accused, testified for the prosecution and identified Severino Ganiban as the leader and the one who shot Malvecino with the Thompson gun. He also identified Pio Balicoco and Tomas Mateo as companions, claiming he participated under pressure from Ganiban. His testimony was corroborated by his prior affidavit and by prosecution witness Jacinto Aguinaldo, who identified Ganiban as the one holding the Thompson gun from the time they gathered. Dr. Aurelio Malvar testified on Malvecino’s fatal injuries and confirmed Tomas Mateo had a contused wound on his right shoulder consistent with being struck by a round piece of wood.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Ganiban was in Barrio Bangay, Dingras, Ilocos Norte, until 9:00 PM on December 9, 1949, arranging palay bundles.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in excluding Benjamin Ganut from the information after the prosecution had commenced its case.
2. Whether the positive identification by prosecution witnesses, including an excluded co-accused, suffices to convict the appellant.
3. Whether the defense of alibi can prevail over positive identification.
4. Whether the testimony of Jacinto Aguinaldo is credible despite allegedly hearing prior witness testimonies in the courtroom.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment, finding Ganiban guilty.
1. The exclusion of Benjamin Ganut was legally permissible under Section 9, Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, which allows discharge of an accused “at any time before the defendants have entered upon their defense.” The Court held this clause permits discharge at any stage from filing of the information until the defense begins presenting evidence. Any error or irregularity in the discharge does not affect the competence of the discharged accused as a witness.
2. The evidence for the prosecution is sufficient for conviction. The testimonies of Fulgencia Rasay and Justo Molina on the robbery and killing were substantially corroborated by Benjamin Ganut and Jacinto Aguinaldo, who positively identified Ganiban as the leader and the shooter. The appellant himself admitted these witnesses had no motive to testify against him.
3. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive and credible identification by prosecution witnesses. Even assuming Ganiban was in Barrio Bangay until 9:00 PM, there was no showing it was impossible for him to be at the crime scene in Barrio Madpes, Sarrat, by 11:30 PM that same night.
4. The credibility of Jacinto Aguinaldo’s testimony is not impaired. His name was listed as a prosecution witness at the bottom of the information, and he was sworn with other witnesses on the first day of trial. The appellant’s counsel’s failure to move for his exclusion from the courtroom precludes raising this issue on appeal, as it would be against fairness.
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in accordance with the facts and the law.