1. MURDER; EVIDENCE; CREDENCE NOT AFFECTED BY FAILURE OF WITNESS TO STATE IMMEDIATELY ASSAILANT’S IDENTITY IF SUCH FAILURE IS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. — There can be no doubt regarding the ability or opportunity of two of the prosecution witnesses in the instant case to identify the appellants, with whom they were acquainted prior to the incident, and from whom they were only about 2 to 7 meters away when the shooting started. The fact that one of these witnesses, when investigated after the incident, said that she did not recognize the assailants, does not affect her credence, because, as she later explained, her son was in a very serious condition and she herself was wounded, and she had to see first that her son was brought to the hospital, which was the most natural thing for her to do.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NO MOTIVE IMPUTABLE TO WITNESS TO FALSELY IMPLICATE APPELLANTS IN CASE AT BAR. — Even granting that her gambling joint used to be raided by one of the appellants when he was a policeman, it was not a sufficient cause for the state witness to impute falsely the commission of a wholesale murder to them if they were not really seen by said witness.

3. ID.; ID.; Alibi NOT DULY ESTABLISHED IN CASE AT BAR. — The witnesses presented by the appellants to established their defense of alibi were, with the exception of the latter’s lawyer, members or former members of the same police force who because of their close relationship with appellants can not be expected to testify truthfully.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; POSSIBILITY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME DUE TO PROXIMITY OF APPELLANTS TO SCENE THEREOF. — Considering that the scene of the crime was merely 2