G.R. NO.

L-66884 MAY 28, 1988

PEOPLE,plaintiff-appellee VS TEMBLOR, defendant-appellant

GRINO-AQQUINO, J.:

On the evening of Dec 30m 1980 at Talo-ao, Buenvaista, Agusan del Norte, Vicente Temblor, with
treachery and intent to kill shoot Julius Cagampang to death. (Crime of Murder, Article

 Cagampang and his wife and their children were conversing in the store adjacent to their house
 The accused arrived and asked to buy a half-pack of Hope Cigarettes
 Then out of nowhere shot Cagampang, and ordered the wife to get their family gun, took it, and
fled

The accused who was a member of the NPA were not apprehended earlier. He later on surrendered
with other members during the mass surrender of dissidents in 1981.

Upon Arraignment he pleaded not guilty

The accused had a defense of an alibi

 That he was on that time of the crime in the house of Silverio Perol with his father drinking.

The accused also capitalized on the fact that the Victims widow, Victorina, did not know him by name.
Which makes a circumstance allegedly renders the identification of the accused to be not certain.

 However there was another witness, a tricycle driver, Claudio Sabanal, who was a long
acquintance of the accused and know the accused by the alias “Ronald”
 Claudio Sabanal, saw the accused enter the house and heard gun shot from it.

And the alibi of the accused has been refuted by personnels from his workplace stating that according to
his time card, he was at work, and not drinking with his father.

The accused appealed and raised the issues:

1. That the court erred in positively identifying him as the killer

Issue: WON the lack of motive for killing was sufficient for him to be acquitted

The court found no merit on the appeal because the court deemed the statements of the witness to be
superior due to them having the chance to observe the act

 WITH REGARDS TO ALIBI: Furthermore, the rule is that in order for an alibi to be acceptable
as a defense, it is not enough that the appellant was somewhere else when the crime was
committed; it must be demonstrated beyond doubt that it was physically impossible for him to
be at the scene of the crime.
 Barging in to the house with a firearm was seen by the court as motive enough to kill him
 And the fact that he obtained the gun of the deceased is one of the known motives of the
NPA, which he is part of
 The proof of motive is not essential when the culprit was identifed