Accused-appellants' defense consisted merely of alibis and denials while the prosecution's main witnesses, the brothers Gilbert and George Montalbo, had clearly narrated what happened that scary night and had positively identified the accused-appellants as the assailants. Settled is the rule that alibi is the weakest of all defenses since it can easily be concocted and that it cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the witnesses. All the appellants alleged that they were at home and had gone to bed at the time of the incident. This defense lacks credence considering that all of the appellants failed to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were vivid and straightforward. In fact, in recalling the scene, the brothers not only remember the acts but also felt the pain of the memory, as they cried while testifying. Thus, it would be hard not to believe the simple but candid testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. We also found no reason why the witnesses would falsely testify against the accused-appellants since they were their close relatives. The reason given by accused-appellant Isidoro Perez was that the ill motive was prompted by a land boundary dispute. While the accused-appellants and the victims of these sordid crimes might have had a dispute over their property, it would defy imagination why the children (then only 13 and 14 years old) would still be involved therein as they must have been spared the ignominy of accused-appellants' dastardly misdeeds. [G.R. No. 110100-02. December 11, 1996]
