G.R. No. 125280 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. WILSON SUITOS, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly he must suffer the commensurate penalty plus damages according to law. The defense magnified beyond proportion the importance of the alleged declaration by Jovy to SPO1 Felimon Bautista that the assailants were "young men, small and barefooted" and, consequently, insinuating that Jovy failed to give a positive identification of accused-appellant. We have examined every detail of the testimonies of Jovy and Vivian and found no reason to doubt their veracity. Contrary to the declaration of SPO1 Bautista, the Ylarde sisters categorically named accused-appellant as one of the gunmen, in the company of Alvaro Suitos and Boy Villar, who shot their father. Accused-appellant was no stranger to them as he used to buy cigarettes from their store. They were neighbors for years. Granting for the sake of argument that Jovy initially identified the culprits to be "young men, small and barefooted," we should not take such statement as gospel truth considering that she was in near hysterics after her father was slain right before her very eyes. During the trial she was unwavering in her claim that accused-appellant shot her father. The hypothesis put forward by accused-appellant that his being implicated in the killing is traceable to his father's inflexible stand not to settle a case involving a relative of the Ylardes is a puerile, if not pathetic, excuse. It would be unnatural for a daughter who is determined to vindicate the death of her father to falsely accuse anyone other than the real culprit. If any, it was accused-appellant who had the motive to perpetrate the dastardly act knowing that his sister and grandmother had been killed by a relative of the victim. Again, his failure to surrender to the authorities because of alleged fear of reprisal from the victim's family is a desperate attempt to camouflage his desire to elude arrest. True, flight per se cannot prove the guilt of an accused, but if the same is considered in the light of other circumstances, it may be taken as a strong indication of guilt. Lastly, his alibi has no leg to stand on. For alibi to prosper, the accused should prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission. [10] The evidence shows that he was in the immediate environs when the shooting happened. In fact, the house of ex-Mayor Lopez where he claimed he was at that time was only a stone's throw away from the crime scene. The trial court correctly held that the killing was qualified by treachery. The record shows that the three (3) accused (Wilson Suitos, Alvaro Suitos and Boy Villar) suddenly appeared from behind and without a word shot Jesus thrice in quick succession. The victim, who was talking with his daughter, had no inkling that the three (3) were out to end his life so suddenly. Not contented with the fatal first shot by Wilson, Alvaro and Boy alternately fired at the victim t