G.R. No. L-61105 October 25, 1983
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pat. Lorenzo Untalasco, Jr. alias “Boy” and Conrado Untalasco, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, brothers Lorenzo Untalasco, Jr. (a policeman) and Conrado Untalasco, were convicted of murder for the killing of Mario Lazaro. The prosecution established that on the evening of December 30, 1980, in Sual, Pangasinan, the victim and Earol Fernandez were riding a motorcycle home from a vigil. While on Agbayani Street, the two accused, each armed with a revolver, fired at them from approximately three meters away, hitting Lazaro in the abdomen. The assailants then chased the motorcycle and fired additional shots. Fernandez, who recognized the appellants’ faces illuminated by the motorcycle’s headlight, managed to guide the vehicle to seek help, but Lazaro died en route to the hospital.
The prosecution further presented evidence of a prior violent motive. On December 11, 1980, Conrado had assaulted Earol Fernandez, and when Mario Lazaro intervened to bring Fernandez to the hospital, an altercation ensued. During this incident, Lorenzo Untalasco reportedly told Mario, “even we will be all finished,” indicating a prior threat. The defense consisted solely of alibi, with Lorenzo claiming he was on duty at a police checkpoint about one kilometer away at the time of the shooting.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in overcoming their defense of alibi with positive identification.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that the positive, categorical, and consistent identification of the appellants by eyewitness Earol Fernandez, corroborated by another witness, Marcelo Valdez, prevails over the weak defense of alibi. Fernandez knew the appellants for years and clearly saw their faces illuminated by the motorcycle’s headlight just before the shooting from a very close distance. The Court found his testimony credible and natural, noting that initial reluctance to immediately name the assailants, especially when one is a local police officer, is understandable and does not impair credibility.
The Court dismissed the appellants’ arguments regarding discrepancies in firearm caliber and the victim’s widow’s initial failure to name them in a telegram. The caliber of a recovered slug is not conclusive, as the appellants could have used different weapons. Furthermore, the widow’s generic description of the suspects in a request for an official investigation was deemed a prudent course of action. Given the strong positive identification, it was not physically impossible for the appellants to have been at the crime scene, rendering their alibi unavailing. The judgment of the trial court was upheld in its entirety.