G.R. No. L-66040. January 17, 1985.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORBERTO CASUNDO, ALFREDO BROA, AGAPITO CASUNDO and MANUEL CASUNDO, accused, NORBERTO CASUNDO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Norberto Casundo, along with three others, was charged with murder for the killing of Ciriaco Aguhob in the early morning of July 27, 1981, in Surigao del Sur. The information alleged that the accused, conspiring and mutually helping each other, assaulted, stabbed, and hacked the victim with a bolo, causing multiple fatal wounds. One co-accused, Manuel Casundo, pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of homicide. Another, Agapito Casundo, remained at large. Norberto Casundo and Alfredo Broa pleaded not guilty. After trial, the lower court found Norberto Casundo guilty as a principal by direct participation and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Alfredo Broa was found guilty as an accomplice. Only Norberto Casundo appealed.
The prosecution evidence, primarily through eyewitness Nicomedes Arreza, established that he and the victim were traveling in separate bancas. Upon arrival at the shore, Arreza witnessed Norberto Casundo hack the victim on the head while Manuel Casundo stabbed him. Agapito Casundo and Alfredo Broa allegedly facilitated the attack by flashing a light on the victim. The victim’s body was later recovered, and a post-mortem examination confirmed the fatal hacked and stab wounds. The defense of Norberto Casundo was alibi, claiming he was in a different barangay at the time of the incident.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting Norberto Casundo of murder based on the eyewitness testimony, despite his defense of alibi and the judicial admission of a co-accused claiming sole responsibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that the positive, direct, and categorical testimony of eyewitness Nicomedes Arreza, who clearly identified Norberto Casundo as one of the assailants, prevails over the weak defense of alibi. Alibi is inherently weak and must be established by clear and convincing evidence; it cannot succeed where the accused has been positively identified. The Court found Arreza’s testimony, corroborated by the medical findings on the victim’s wounds, to be credible and convincing despite minor inconsistencies, which are attributable to human imperfection and do not affect the core narrative of the crime. The claim that a co-accused admitted sole responsibility was insufficient to overturn the positive identification and the evidence of concerted action. The attack was sudden and fatal, qualifying the killing as murder. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus upheld, with the modification increasing the civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim to P30,000.00.