G.R. No. 140217 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DOMINGO PATOC, ALIAS “DOMING” AND JOHN DOE, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the identification of accused-appellant as one of the killers of Basilio must, perforce, prevail over the bare denial of accused-appellant. Likewise futile is accused-appellants defense of alibi. Alibi is looked upon by courts with caution, for not only is it inherently unreliable, it is also rather easy to fabricate. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough that an accused prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the situs criminis when the crime was committed. [28] In this case, accused-appellant failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed. While he insists that he arrived in Opon, Cebu as early as 11:00 a.m. of August 24, 1996 and left for Moalboal early morning of the following day, he also confirmed on cross-examination that it takes only about 2½ hours for one to travel by bus from Opon to Moalboal. [29] Moreover, his alibi that, at the time of the shooting incident, he was in the bunk house of the TPI Homes in Opon, Cebu playing chess with Robo and the latters foreman, while corroborated by Robo, who was his friend and neighbor in Barangay Batadbatad, Moalboal, Cebu, [30] was not corroborated by the foreman, who was the only other person mentioned by Robo who could attest to accused-appellants presence at the bunk house on the night of the shooting incident and who could as well give a more unbiased testimony on behalf of accused-appellant. Given the factual milieu of the case, this Court is in accord with the trial courts finding that the killing of Basilio was attended by alevosia . This Court has held that treachery is present when the offender commits any crime against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from any defense which the offended party might make. [31] The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e. , (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him. [32] As vividly narrated by Rufina and Christopher, the attack on Basilio was sudden. Basilio had no inkling of the impending attack. He was just nonchalantly walking along the road when accused-appellant and his cohort appeared from nowhere and suddenly shot him. Basilio had no opportunity to anticipate the imminence of his attack, nor was he in a position to defend himself or repel the aggression because he was unarmed. Moreover, he was fatally shot on the region of the head, at close range, as evidenced by the powder burns found around the victims gunshot wounds. To ensure the success of their criminal design, accused-appellant and his cohort fired at the victim five t