PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CARLOS VILLANUEVA, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the decision dated March 5, 1990
of the Regional Trial Court of Surigao del Norte, Branch 32, at Surigao City,
finding Carlos Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The information which was filed against the appellant on May 18,
1988 by the 1st Assistant City Fiscal of Surigao del Norte reads as follows:

“The undersigned First Assistant City Fiscal hereby accuses CARLOS VILLANUEVA of the crime of Murder,
committed as follows:

“That on or about the 11th day of April 1988, in the City of
Surigao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with treachery and evident premeditation and with the
intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack
and assault one P/Sgt. ARTURO J. PELOS by suddenly shooting him twice with the
use of a hand gun directed towards the vital parts of his body, thus causing
said P/Sgt. Arturo Pelos to sustain gunshot wounds on his back and abdomen,
which injuries caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of
the heirs of the deceased in such amount as may be allowed them by law.

“Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the
qualifying circumstance of treachery.

“Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.” (p.
10, Rollo.)

Upon arraignment, Villanueva pleaded not guilty.

The facts of the case, as
found by the trial court, are the following:

The victim, Arturo Pelos, was a police sergeant assigned as the INP
station commander of the island-town of Libjo (Albor), Surigao del Norte. In the morning of April 11, 1988, he boarded
a passenger motor launch. M/L Jun Ryan,
bound for Surigao City with his nephew, Leonor Pelos, Jr. One of the passengers of the motor launch
was Alan Cabajes. The vessel reached
Surigao City at about 12:30 noon. Upon
arrival, Alan Cabajes got off the boat and took a motorized tricycle, to the
apartment of his sister, Mary Grace dela Rama, in the interior of Kaimo Street. After a few minutes rest, he went to the next-door
apartment building some 25 meters farther down Kaimo Street with a two-meter
wide alley leading to it.

Arturo Pelos and Leonor Pelos, Jr. also got off the launch and rode
a tricycle to the apartment of Arturo’s father, Antonino Pelos. Upon reaching Kaimo Street, the two
passengers proceeded down the alleyway leading to the apartment building. At the time of their arrival, Maribelle
Galindo had just finished picking some flowers on the roadside behind the Bank
of the Philippine Islands building. Upon
seeing Sergeant Pelos and Leonor Pelos, Jr. enter the alley, she rushed to join
them. Leonor Pelos, Jr. leading the
way, Maribelle Galindo walked about two meters behind Sergeant Pelos. When the three were almost at Antonino’s
apartment, Maribelle was suddenly pushed aside by a man from behind her. She looked at the man and saw that he was
holding a handgun. The man pointed his
gun and fired at the back of Arturo Pelos, hitting him. Arturo turned around and slowly fell on his
back to the ground. The gunman fired
again at the stomach of the prostrate victim, hitting him a second time. Then the assassin tucked his gun inside his
waistband and turned back from where he came. As the gunman faced Maribelle Galindo, she looked directly at him as he
ran out of the alley toward Kaimo Street where he disappeared. Later, she recognized and identified the
accused, Carlos Villanueva, as the gunman who shot and killed Arturo Pelos.

After the killer had fled, several people converged on the scene
including Mary Grace dela Rama, Alan Cabajes and Antonino Pelos. With the help of some onlookers, the victim
was brought to the Surigao Provincial Hospital but was declared dead on
arrival. An autopsy was later conducted
by the City Health Officer, Dr. Adelina A. Cabarrubias, whose postmortem
findings showed that Arturo Pelos sustained and died from two gunshot wounds on
his upper back and abdomen (Exhs. E and F).

Mary Grace dela Rama testified that at about 12:45 in the afternoon
of April 11, 1988 she was on the ground floor of her apartment in the interior
of Kaimo Street, combing her hair before the mirror near the door preparatory to going back to her
office. Suddenly she heard a gunshot
outside the building. As she stood up
to look outside she heard a second loud report. Peering through the partly-opened door, she saw a person lying on
his back in the alley about five meters away. About two meters further away and facing her was another person who was
pointing a gun at the fallen man. The
gunman turned around and fled toward Kaimo Street. She approached the fallen man and recognized him to be Arturo
Pelos, the son of her next-door neighbor Antonino Pelos. She also identified the accused as the
gunman.

The testimonies of
Maribelle Galindo and Mary Grace dela Rama were substantially corroborated by
Alan Cabajes who declared that he saw the incident in question from the
apartment of Antonino Pelos where he was visiting at the time. He also claimed to have seen the accused in
Libjo before the incident although he did not then know his name.

The accused was positively identified at the City Police Station
(where he was invited for interview) by the prosecution witnesses, Alan
Cabajes, Maribelle Galindo and Leonor Pelos, who were all around when the
incident occurred. (pp. 9 and 13,
Records).

On March 5, 1990, the trial court rendered judgment finding the
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, Carlos Villanueva,
guilty beyond doubt as a principal of murder under Art. 248, No. 1, of the
Revised Penal Code, and there being no modifying circumstance to consider,
hereby sentences him to reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties; to pay
civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the sum of P30.000.00, and
reasonable expenses for burial of P10,000,00 with cost.” (p. 37, Rollo.)

In this appeal, the appellant alleges that the court a quo
erred:

1.     
In convicting him notwithstanding failure of the prosecution
to adduce evidence and/or proof (of his guilt) beyond reasonable doubt.

2.     
In imposing on him the supreme penalty of life imprisonment.

The appeal is bereft of merit.

The only defense of the appellant is an alibi.

At the outset, it is important to stress that courts always
receive with caution, if not suspicion, evidence of alibi, not only because it
is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because of its easy
fabrication. To overcome the evidence
of the prosecution, an alibi, must satisfy the test of full clear, and
satisfactory evidence. This test
requires not only proof that the accused was somewhere else other than the
scene of the crime, but clear and convincing proof of physical impossibility
for him to have been at the place of the commission of the crime (People vs.
Baring, 187 SCRA 629; citing People vs. Gaddi y Catubay, 170 SCRA 649).

Appellant’s contention that he could not have committed the
murder because he was nowhere near the situs of the crime, being then on his
way to Barangay Timamana, Tubod, Surigao del Norte, failed to meet the test
that there must be clear and convincing proof of physical impossibility for the
accused to be at the scene of the crime, in order that his defense of alibi may
prosper.

It was established beyond doubt, for it was admitted by the
appellant himself, that he was in Surigao City at or about the time of the
shooting of Arturo Pelos. The accused claimed
that he arrived in Surigao City on the M/L Jun Ryan at about 12:30 P.M. on
April 11, 1988. This was the very same
boat the victim, Arturo Pelos, had taken to the city. The accused declared that at 12:45 P.M. he left the terminal in a
jeepney for Barangay Timamana about 32 kilometers away. By this circumstance appellant wanted to
show the physical impossibility of his being present at the scene of the crime
and of his having committed it. However, the trial court took judicial notice of the proximity of the
jeepney terminal at Kaskag District to the scene of the shooting at Kaimo
Street which are both within the poblacion or town proper of Surigao City. The distance between these two points is
about one-half kilometer only which can ordinarily be negotiated in less than
five (5) minutes by a motorized tricycle. There was therefore, no physical impossibility for the appellant to be
at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed for, as pointed out by
the trial court, it would have been quite easy for the accused, upon arriving
in Surigao City, to immediately proceed to Kaimo Street to ambush his intended
victim and thereafter, to flee by tricycle to the jeepney terminal in a matter
of minutes.

Moreover, the appelant was positively identified by the
prosecution witnesses, principally Maribelle Galindo and Mary Grace dela Rama,
as the man who shot Sgt. Arturo Pelos, the victim. The presence of the prosecution witnesses during the incident had
been clearly established for they were living in the place where the shooting
took place. More importantly, the
prosecution witness, Maribelle Galindo, was actually behind the victim when the
accused shoved her aside by the shoulder before shooting his target to death. It should also be noted that the crime was
committed at high noon, in broad daylight. The gunman wore no disguise, hence, his face was clearly visible making
it easy for eye-witnesses to accurately identify him.

In view of the positive identification of the accused by the
prosecution witnesses, his alibi is futile. It is a settled doctrine that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over
the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses who
have no motive to testify falsely against him (People vs. Espera, 175 SCRA
728).

In this case,
there is no showing whatsoever that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by
some improper motives in testifying against the appellant. Therefore, their testimony is entitled to
full faith and credit (People vs. Carpio, 191 SCRA 108).

Although the prosecution witnesses are relatives of the victim,
such relationship does not
render their testimony less credible. This Court has already ruled that the mere fact that witnesses are
relatives of the victim is not sufficient reason to disregard their testimony
nor does it render the same less
worthy of credit. What is important is
that they had positively identified the accused as the assailant (People vs.
Bocatcat, Sr., 188 SCRA 175).

Appellant’s disclaimer that he has no motive to kill the victim is not important for motive is
unnecessary when the assailant had been positively identified (People vs.
Kyamko, 192 SCRA 374).

WHEREFORE, the appeal is dismissed. The
decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED except the civil indemnity awarded to
the legal heirs of the victim. Arturo
Pelos, which is increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) (People vs.
Sazon, 189 SCRA 700).

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Medialdea, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.