G.R. No. L-52516 May 31, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NILO TALORONG, alias INO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

In the evening of October 18, 1973, Mauro Vidal and his wife Gonzala Sabanal were assaulted in their home in Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, by three men to whom they had earlier provided supper and lodging. Vidal died from multiple stab wounds. The assailants fled. Based on affidavits, a complaint for murder was filed against Nilo Talorong, Cesar Rallos, and a John Doe. Talorong was arrested nineteen months later in a sitio sixteen kilometers away after being implicated in a theft. While in jail, Gonzala positively identified Talorong as one of the three perpetrators. The provincial fiscal filed an information for murder, and Talorong posted bail.
At trial, Gonzala Sabanal, the sole eyewitness, testified that after serving supper to the three strangers, she and her husband allowed them to sleep in the same room. Later, one assailant shouted an order, another stabbed her, and Talorong sat astride her husband to immobilize him while a third companion inflicted the fatal wounds. Talorong interposed an alibi, claiming he was in Barrio Binicuil with his in-laws or parents at the time of the crime, which a resident corroborated. The trial court convicted Talorong of murder, sentenced him to death, and ordered indemnity.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the eyewitness identification and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s reliance on the positive identification by Gonzala Sabanal. The eyewitness had ample opportunity to observe and remember Talorong’s features as she personally served him supper and allowed him to sleep in her house. Her testimony was credible and detailed, identifying Talorong as the one who pinned down her husband to facilitate the killing. This positive identification, made under circumstances allowing for clear recognition, rendered his alibi weak and unavailing. An alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by a credible witness.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, as the attack was sudden and deliberate, rendering the victims defenseless. The generic aggravating circumstances of dwelling and abuse of confidence or manifest ingratitude were also present, as the crime was committed in the victims’ home after they had extended hospitality. While these circumstances warranted the death penalty under the law then in force, the Court, for lack of the necessary votes, commuted the sentence to reclusion perpetua in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The indemnity was affirmed.