G.R. Nos. L-67721-22 December 10, 1987
People of the Philippines vs. Avelino Atencio, Conrado Cardenas, and Antonio Gallo

FACTS

Accused-appellants Avelino Atencio, Conrado Cardenas, and Antonio Gallo were convicted of two counts of murder for the killings of Leonardo Franzuela and Isidro Moreno. The trial court found that on the evening of October 11, 1978, in Catarman, Northern Samar, Antonio Gallo attacked Franzuela at his doorstep. Simultaneously, Atencio and Cardenas attacked Isidro Moreno in a nearby store. After stabbing Moreno, Atencio and Cardenas joined Gallo in repeatedly stabbing Franzuela. The victims died from their wounds. The convictions were based on the positive eyewitness accounts of Pascualita Franzuela and Rogelio Moreno. Antonio Gallo escaped custody, leading to the dismissal of his appeal.
On appeal, Atencio and Cardenas raised the defense of alibi. Cardenas claimed he was harvesting rice 12 kilometers away on the day of the crime, while Atencio asserted he was caring for his sick aunt about one kilometer from the crime scene. They argued the prosecution witnesses were mistaken and that no conspiracy existed.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the defense of alibi can prevail over the positive identification of the accused by credible eyewitnesses.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. The defense of alibi was rejected. The Court reiterated the doctrine that for alibi to prosper, it must be shown that the accused was at another place at the time of the crime and that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene. Here, the distances cited—12 kilometers for Cardenas and one kilometer for Atencio—did not constitute physical impossibility, especially given the time frame involved. The positive identification by two eyewitnesses, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, categorically placed the appellants at the crime scene participating in the attacks. This positive identification prevails over a weak alibi.
The Court found conspiracy evident from the appellants’ coordinated and simultaneous actions in attacking the two victims, demonstrating a unity of purpose. However, the Court modified the penalty. The trial court imposed reclusion perpetua, but the proper penalty for murder at the time was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the Court imposed indeterminate sentences. Atencio received 16 to 20 years of reclusion temporal, and Cardenas received 14 to 18 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal for each murder. The civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00 for each victim.