G.R. Nos. L-37518-19. June 29, 1983.
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Geronimo Surban, Ruben Surban, Javier Surban, Nestor Surban, Manuel Surban, Pablito Buella, Orlando Surban, Eleuterio Surban, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

These consolidated cases stem from the separate murders of Gregorio Gesmundo and his father, Gil Gesmundo, on the evening of July 22, 1972, in Barrio Codon, San Andres, Catanduanes. For Gregorio’s killing (Criminal Case No. 174), the accused were Geronimo, Ruben, Javier, Nestor, Manuel, Pablo (Pablito) Buella, and Orlando Surban. For Gil’s killing (Criminal Case No. 175), the accused were Geronimo, Ruben, and Eleuterio Surban. After a joint trial, the Court of First Instance convicted the named accused in each case, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnity and damages. Several other accused were acquitted. All convicted accused appealed, though Geronimo and Ruben Surban later withdrew their appeals.
The prosecution evidence, through eyewitnesses Soledad Vallespin and Arturo Nazareno, established that the attack on Gregorio was premeditated and executed by a group. Initially, Manuel Surban, Pablo Buella, and Javier Surban confronted Gregorio at Vallespin’s house. After being pacified by the barangay captain, Gregorio left but was chased by a larger group including Geronimo, Nestor, Orlando, and Ruben Surban. Nazareno witnessed the pursuit and the subsequent killing, wherein Geronimo struck Gregorio with a bolo, Ruben stabbed him, and others joined in assaulting him with stones and wood. Regarding Gil Gesmundo, the evidence showed he was killed in a separate but related attack on the same night.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution evidence sufficiently established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the defense’s challenges to witness credibility and their interposition of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, finding no compelling reason to deviate from its findings. The positive identification of the appellants by eyewitnesses Nazareno and Vallespin was deemed clear and credible, outweighing the defense of alibi. The Court emphasized that for alibi to prosper, it must be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene. The appellants failed to meet this stringent requirement, as their alleged locations were not so distant as to preclude their presence.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the defense’s attempt to impugn the testimony by highlighting alleged improbabilities in the manner the fatal wounds were inflicted. The medical testimony was reconciled with the eyewitness accounts, with the Court noting that the presence of multiple wounds, some of which could have been inflicted from different angles, supported the collective action described by the prosecution. The coordinated nature of the attacks, the pursuit, and the utterances made during the incidents indicated conspiracy among the appellants. Consequently, the appealed decision was affirmed as to the remaining appellants.