Title
People vs. Alonzo
Case
G.R. No. L-32163
Decision Date
Oct 19, 1976
Wilfredo Flores was ambushed and stabbed to death by four accused in Balanga, Bataan. Despite alibi defenses, the Supreme Court upheld their murder conviction, citing positive witness identification, conspiracy, and treachery. Indemnity was increased to P12,000.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-32163)

Overview of Evidence Presented by the Prosecution

The trial court found the evidence against the appellants compelling. Witnesses testified that on April 29, 1966, at around 4:00 to 5:00 PM, four individuals, subsequently identified as the appellants, sought out Wilfredo Flores. After Flores arrived, the appellants attacked him. Witness Sebastian Estember identified Antonio Alonzo as the one who stabbed Flores, leading to his death from two stab wounds as corroborated by the autopsy conducted by the municipal health officer.

Defense Claims and Testimonies

The appellants contended that they were elsewhere at the time of the murder. Juan Villosillo claimed to be harvesting peanuts, supported by witnesses Carmelita Diwa and Eufemia Zabala. Rolando Gano asserted he was guarding a bulldozer in a different barrio, while Renato Hernando testified about being occupied on his farm. Antonio Alonzo recounted being at his own farm and presented witnesses to corroborate his location during the crime. However, the trial court found their alibi unconvincing due to a lack of credible evidence.

Trial Court's Analysis and Findings

The trial court thoroughly examined the evidence from both sides, ultimately siding with the prosecution. It noted the positive identification of the accused by several witnesses and the absence of any motive for the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the appellants. The court held that the alibi defenses did not outweigh the prosecution’s compelling evidence.

Ruling on Alibi and Conspiracy

The court emphasized that the defense of alibi is often considered weak, particularly when there is strong identification of the accused by eyewitnesses. The trial court found solid grounds for concluding that there was a conspiracy among the appellants, reflecting a common intention to commit the crime. As the actions of one could be attributed to all, it ruled that all four were guilty of murder with alevosia, given the nature of their concerted attack on the victim.

Characterization of the Offense

The appellants contended that the crime should be classified as homicide instead of murder. However, the court found that the circums

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.