G.R. No. L-69674 September 15, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIOLETO ABIGAN and FELICITO CAPELLAN ARAGON (at large), accused, VIOLETO ABIGAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on the evening of April 10, 1982, in Barangay Buracan, Dimasalang, Masbate, the victim Judy Bulan was fishing in a river with companions Ruben Arayesa and Agapito Diola, who carried a Coleman gas lamp. While the victim was unarmed and in the act of picking up a caught fish, accused-appellant Violeto Abigan, who had been sitting nearby concealed under a large banana leaf, suddenly stood and stabbed Bulan in the chest with a long bolo. Diola, positioned merely three meters away, positively identified Abigan as the assailant, recognizing him clearly due to the bright lamplight and their prior acquaintance as fellow barangay residents. After the stabbing, Abigan’s co-accused, Felicito Capellan Aragon, who was on the riverbank, cranked a riot gun, prompting Diola to extinguish the lamp, after which both accused fled. The post-mortem examination confirmed the victim died from stab wounds consistent with a bolo attack.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of appellant Violeto Abigan for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Agapito Diola entirely credible and sufficient to establish guilt. Diola’s positive identification was reliable given the well-lit crime scene, his proximity to the event, the absence of obstructions to his view, and his prior familiarity with the appellant. Minor inconsistencies in his account were deemed trivial and even indicative of unrehearsed testimony. The Court rejected Abigan’s defense of alibi, which he supported only with his own and his wife’s testimony, as inherently weak and easily fabricated. His claim of being asleep at home failed because his residence was only 300 to 500 meters from the crime scene, making it not physically impossible for him to have been present. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. Furthermore, the Court ruled that proof of motive, while present from a prior conflict involving the victim’s father, is not indispensable for conviction when the crime and the accused’s participation are conclusively established by direct evidence. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was sustained, with the civil indemnity increased to P30,000.00.