G.R. No. L-54500 & L-56020. January 29, 1988.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GENARO BATAC alias “ROGELIO” and RENATO “ATO” REFUERZO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The consolidated cases involve the murder of Patrolman Julian de Guzman inside a passenger bus in Malasiqui, Pangasinan, on September 23, 1977. Eyewitness Mamerto Macaranas testified that appellant Renato Refuerzo, seated beside the victim, attempted to wrest the victim’s service pistol. During the struggle, appellant Genaro Batac approached from the rear and shot De Guzman twice with a pistolized carbine, after which Batac shouted “This is a hold up!” Both appellants, along with two other companions, then fled the bus. The prosecution also presented the victim’s father, Numeriano de Guzman, who testified that earlier on the day of the killing, Batac and Refuerzo, with others, passed by their house and shouted a threat to kill the policeman.
Both appellants interposed the defense of alibi. Batac claimed he was at his cousin’s house and later left for Manila by train at 11:00 PM on the night of the crime, which was four hours after the shooting. Refuerzo claimed he was in Cotabato at the time of the incident and only returned to Pangasinan in 1979. The trial court convicted both of murder, appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation against Batac.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based on the eyewitness testimony and in rejecting their defenses of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. The Court upheld the trial court’s heavy reliance on the positive, clear, and credible testimony of eyewitness Mamerto Macaranas, who had an unobstructed view of the well-lighted interior of the bus. Positive identification prevails over alibi, which is inherently weak. Batac’s alibi failed because he did not prove it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at 7:00 PM, given that his claimed location was merely seven kilometers away and his departure for Manila occurred hours later. His sudden departure was construed as flight. Refuerzo’s alibi was supported only by the hearsay testimony of a relative and was insufficient to overcome his positive identification.
The Court agreed that treachery attended the killing, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, denying the victim any chance to defend himself. Evident premeditation was also established against Batac based on the prior threat testified to by the victim’s father. However, for Refuerzo, no modifying circumstances were considered. Applying the constitutional prohibition on the death penalty, the Court modified the sentences. Batac’s penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. Refuerzo was sentenced under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to an imprisonment term of 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 20 years, as maximum. Both were ordered to pay solidary civil indemnity and damages.