SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
130944
January 18, 2000
-versus-
VICENTE ALIB, ROGER
ALIB, FREDDIE ALIB,
JIMMY ALIB AND
ALEJANDRINO
DITCHON,
Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I
O N
BELLOSILLO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
VICENTE ALIB, ROGER ALIB,
FREDDIE ALIB, JIMMY ALIB and ALEJANDRITO DITCHON were charged with
Murder
qualified by treachery and committed pursuant to a conspiracy for the
killing
of Wilson Calapan on 20 August 1996 in Sitio Antawan, Mt. Kanlandog,
Murcia,
Negros Occidental. Vicente Alib, Roger Alib, Freddie Alib and Jimmy
Alib
were apprehended and tried, while Alejandrito Ditchon has remained at
large.
At about 8:30 in the
evening of 20 August 1996 the spouses Juanito Calapan and Marilyn
Calapan
together with their sons Jerson and Wilson were having dinner in their
house when they heard accused Vicente Alib, Marilyn's cousin, shouting
and challenging them to a fight. Marilyn opened the door and found
Vicente
at the stairs. He was drunk. She also saw the other accused Roger,
Freddie
and Jimmy and Alejandrito in the yard. Marilyn told Vicente, "Toto
Libat,
go home because you are drunk; something might happen and I will be
responsible."
She then closed the door. Vicente however forced the door open and
Marilyn
was hit on the head. Whereupon, her son Wilson intervened and asked
permission
from her if he could escort his uncle home.[1]
Juanito testified that
he followed his son Wilson to the stairs to meet his uncle Vicente.[2]
Wilson said to Vicente, "Tio, let us go home; I will conduct you home."[3]
Suddenly, Vicente's brothers Freddie and Roger grabbed Wilson by the
arms
and without warning Vicente hacked him on the head with a bolo, while
his
nephew Jimmy struck Wilson at the back with a piece of wood. Freddie
then
stepped back, drew his firearm and shot Wilson three (3) times but
missed
him as he fell to the ground.[4]
With his son now at the mercy of his assailants Juanito rushed to his
rescue.
But it was all in vain. Roger blocked his path and hacked him in the
hand.
All the accused then fled.[5]
Marilyn who was only
about three (3) arms length away saw the brutal assault on her son.[6]
She ran towards the Special Forces Detachment of the Philippine Army
and
sought help from the Detachment Commander, Capt. Andres Banaw. The
latter
however refused to render immediate assistance because the area was
considered
"critical"[7]
and something might happen to them but he assured Marilyn nevertheless
that he and his men would go to the scene of the crime the next day.[8]
The same night, Wilson died in their residence. He succumbed to
neurogenic
shock secondary to a hack wound in the skull, according to the
post-mortem
examination by Dr. Augustus Tan, Municipal Health Officer of Murcia,
Negros
Occidental.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused Vicente Alib
admitted the killing but asserted that it was in self-defense. He
recounted
that at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of 20 August 1996 he was
about
to tow his carabao at the side of the river when upon reaching the
house
of the Calapans, Juanito shouted at him, "Libat, let's fight."[10]
He did not respond as Juanito was drunk. Accused then proceeded on his
way home when Juanito and Wilson, who were armed with a cane cutter and
a bolo, respectively, together with one Roberto Rodriguez waylaid him.
Wilson then hacked him thrice with a bolo although he escaped the
successive
blows. According to Vicente, this prompted him to pull his bolo from
the
scabbard with the use of his left hand and hacked Wilson on the face
that
sent him falling to the ground.[11]
Juanito tried to help Wilson, but as he was about to attack, Vicente
hacked
him on the left side of his arm. Wounded, Juanito ran towards his
house.
Vicente also went home.[12]
The following day he surrendered at the military detachment of Barangay
Kanlandog, Murcia, Negros Occidental.cralaw:red
To corroborate his defense
Vicente Alib presented witness Luz Flor, a neighbor of the Calapans.
She
testified that on 20 August 1996 while she and her family were
preparing
to sleep they heard Juanito and Wilson challenging Vicente to a fight.[13]
Together with a sister, she went out of the house and saw Wilson and
Juanito,
who appeared to be drunk, chasing Vicente, and the hacking incident
followed.
From a distance of twelve (12) meters, Luz allegedly saw Wilson hacked
Vicente but missed.[14]
Nervous as she was, she returned to his house and peeped through the
window
and allegedly saw Juanito running towards his house while Wilson was
already
lying on the ground. Vicente then fled.cralaw:red
The other Alibs disavowed
any complicity in the killing of Wilson Calapan claiming that they were
in their respective homes at the time of the incident.[15]
On 25 April 1997 the
trial court rendered a decision[16]
rejecting the theory of self-defense as well as alibi and gave full
credence
to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Marilyn and Juanito Calapan
who positively identified the accused as the culprits. Accordingly, the
accused were convicted of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced
to
reclusion perpetua, except 15-year old accused Jimmy Alib whose
sentence
was suspended and was ordered released under the supervision of the
Department
of Social Welfare and Development pursuant to PD 603, The Child and
Youth
Welfare Code.cralaw:red
Accused-appellants contend
in this appeal that the trial court seriously erred: (a) in
disregarding
their evidence; (b) in finding the existence of treachery and
conspiracy
in the commission of the crime charged; and, (c) in not holding that it
was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at
the
time of its commission.cralaw:red
Accused-appellants'
assigned errors revolve on the credibility of the witnesses. But the
rule
is that findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses
deserve
a high degree of respect. Having observed the deportment of witnesses
during
the trial the court a quo was in a better position to determine the
issue
of credibility; thus, its findings will not be disturbed on appeal in
the
absence of any clear showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied
some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could have
altered
the conviction of accused-appellants.[17]
We find no reason to depart from this rule. Indeed, after a
conscientious
review of the records we are convinced that the death of victim Wilson
Calapan was a result not of self-defense on the part of
accused-appellant
Vicente Alib but of unlawful, criminal aggression perpetrated by all
accused-appellants;
consequently, we affirm their conviction.cralaw:red
In self-defense the
burden of proof rests upon the accused. His duty is to establish by
sufficient,
satisfactory and convincing evidence the following requisites: (a)
unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the
means
employed to prevent or repel it; and, (c) lack of sufficient
provocation
on the part of the person defending himself.[18]
We discern no criminal aggression on the part of the victim in the
instant
case. Accused-appellant Vicente Alib miserably failed to show that
there
was a previous, unlawful and unprovoked attack on his person that would
have placed him in danger, thereby forcing him to repel the attack and
inflict more or less severe wounds upon his victim employing reasonable
means therefor. On the contrary, Juanito and Marilyn Calapan
categorically
testified that all accused-appellants mercilessly and viciously
attacked
their son Wilson as he was trying to pacify his pugnacious uncle
Vicente
who was drunk at that time and to escort him home. The clear,
unequivocal
and untraversed account of events by these prosecution witnesses
regarding
the manner of attack and the participation of each accused-appellant in
the killing of Wilson Calapan rendered totally inutile the defenses
which
Vicente, Roger, Freddie and Jimmy Alib now invoke.cralaw:red
Vicente Alib would have
this Court believe that Wilson Calapan, together with Juanito Calapan
and
one Roberto Rodriguez, all armed, waylaid him; that a bloody hacking
encounter
ensued wherein he killed Wilson and wounded Juanito after skillfully
dodging
their successive hacking blows, much like the familiar stereotyped
protagonist
in an action movie who could easily overpower his adversaries with
grace
and savvy. But we are not impressed, much less amused, by his story.cralaw:red
It is incredible that
he was unscathed during the alleged ambush, given his claim that he was
only one (1) arm's length from the deceased who, at that time, was
armed
with a 2-1/2-foot long bolo, and with two (2) other armed companions -
Juanito Calapan and Roberto Rodriguez. As observed by both the court a
quo and the Solicitor General, and to which we agree, if Vicente's
story
were to be believed he would have been the deceased and not Wilson. But
as it turned out, Vicente sustained no injury, not even a scratch from
his encounter with Wilson, Juanito and Roberto. This is surprising
since
the picture accused-appellant paints of the deceased is that of a
dangerous
young man who would pick a fight with anybody in the barangay. The fact
that he emerged unharmed from his encounter with such a "dangerous
individual"
who had companions who were allegedly armed to the teeth and hell-bent
on harming him, belies his claim that he alone killed the victim in
self-defense.cralaw:red
On the defenses of denial
and alibi interposed by the other accused-appellants, courts generally
view them with disfavor on account of their aridity and the facility
with
which an accused could concoct them to suit his defense. Being evidence
that is negative in nature and self-serving, they cannot secure
worthiness
more than that placed upon the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who
testify on clear and positive evidence.cralaw:red
Moreover, for alibi
to be given weight, accused-appellants must prove not only that they
were
somewhere else when the crime was committed but that they were so far
away
that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the scene
of
the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[19]
The evidence on record reveals that it was not physically impossible
for
them to be at the locus criminis considering that all of them and their
victim lived in a small barrio. In fact, the Alibs and the Calapans
were
neighbors, residing only fifty (50) meters from each other.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused-appellants posit
that they did not flee after the commission of the crime but stayed in
their respective houses doing daily chores, an evidence of their
innocence.
There is however no law or principle which guarantees that non-flight
per
se is proof, let alone conclusive proof, of one's innocence and, as in
the case of alibi and denial, such a defense is unavailing when placed
astride the undisputed fact that there is positive identification of
the
offenders.[20]
Accused-appellants likewise
argue that the trial court erred in finding conspiracy since their
complicity
in the crime was not sufficiently established by the prosecution. They
maintain that the victim suffered only one (1) hack wound on the right
side of his head and no other wound was found on his body, thereby
negating
their participation in the crime. The argument is bereft of merit. In a
conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators
actually
hit and killed the victim. What is important is that all participants
performed
specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably
indicate
a common purpose or design to bring about the death of the victim.cralaw:red
The prosecution evidence
clearly and convincingly shows a coordinated assault on the victim with
each of the accused-appellants performing a specific role in the
execution
of the crime. Thus, Freddie Alib and Roger Alib held both arms of the
victim
to render him immobile and preclude any potential resistance from him,
thus enabling Vicente to consummate his dastardly act; Jimmy Alib
positioned
himself at the back of the victim and rendered assistance to his
co-conspirators
by hitting the victim with a piece of wood; after the victim was hacked
by Vicente, Freddie drew his gun and shot (although he missed) the
victim
thrice to ensure that he was dead; and, Roger blocked the path of
Juanito
Calapan and hacked his hand to prevent him from helping the victim. In
carrying out a conspiracy, every act of each conspirator in furtherance
of the common purpose is in contemplation of law the act of all.
Consonant
with this legal principle, each appellant is just as guilty as if he
himself
dealt the deathblow that sent Wilson Calapan to his grave.cralaw:red
Accused-appellants next
contend that assuming Vicente Alib may be held liable for the killing
of
Wilson Calapan, it cannot be murder for the following reasons: (a) the
killing of the victim was not attended by the qualifying circumstance
of
treachery; and, (b) the attack on the victim was not so sudden and
unexpected
as he was facing the victim when he hacked the latter.cralaw:red
We are not persuaded.
The records speak eloquently of the manner by which the victim was
slain.
Wilson Calapan could not have expected, as he descended the stairs of
his
house, that he would be savagely and fatally assaulted by
accused-appellants
who were his relatives. He was totally defenseless during the attack
since
his hands were restrained by Freddie and Roger, and Vicente hacked him
on the head with a bolo without any warning. As held by the trial court
-
When Wilson went down
with Vicente Alib, he did not have the faintest idea that he was
vulnerable
to an attack considering that the latter was deemed a relative. He went
out to escort his uncle home, obviously oblivious of the sinister
intent
of the latter. Wilson was not in a position to have prepared for an
attack.
He willingly went down, unarmed, but was grabbed by the two other Alibs
by the hands which made the hacking of Vicente easier and without risk
to themselves. Roger Alib even managed to hack Juanito on the hand when
the latter came to his son's rescue. Abuse of superior strength,
absorbed
in the qualifying circumstance of treachery, is evident from the
disparity
between the strength of the hapless victim and his five assailants.cralaw:red
An unexpected and sudden
attack under circumstances which render the victim unable and
unprepared
to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the
assault
constitutes treachery or alevosia. Parenthetically, the fact that the
attack
on deceased Wilson Calapan was frontal does not preclude the presence
of
treachery in this case as the same made the attack no less unexpected
and
sudden. In fine, the trial court correctly considered the killing of
Wilson
Calapan as Murder qualified by treachery, and, in the absence of any
attendant
mitigating or aggravating circumstances, imposed on Vicente Alib, Roger
Alib and Freddie Alib the penalty of reclusion perpetua. We likewise
agree
that the other accused-appellant, Jimmy Alib, was entitled to the
benefit
of a suspended sentence under Art. 192, PD 603, The Child and Youth
Welfare
Code, he being a minor at the time of the commission of the crime in
1996
and at the time of the sentencing in 1997.[21]
WHEREFORE, the conviction
of accused-appellants Vicente Alib, Roger Alib, Freddie Alib and Jimmy
Alib by the court a quo for MURDER qualified by treachery is AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, they are all sentenced to reclusion perpetua together with
its accessory penalties under the law.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As regards accused-appellant
Jimmy Alib, the decision of the trial court suspending his sentence and
ordering his release under the supervision of the Department of Social
Welfare and Development is likewise AFFIRMED. It appearing, however,
that
as of the date of this Decision he has already reached the age of
majority,
the Department of Social Welfare and Development is DIRECTED to submit
a report and recommendation to the court a quo regarding his conduct
and
behavior for purposes of applying Arts. 196 and 197 of PD 603, The
Child
and Youth Welfare Code.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In addition to the foregoing,
accused-appellants are ORDERED to pay jointly and severally the heirs
of
the victim, Wilson Calapan, in the amounts of P50,000.00 as indemnity
for
his death and P23,000.00 for funeral and burial expenses. The sum of
P24,798.00
representing the loss of earning capacity of the deceased, as decreed
by
the trial court, is DELETED for lack or insufficiency of evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With regard to accused
ALEJANDRITO DITCHON, let this case be ARCHIVED and an Alias Warrant of
Arrest issue against him and face trial under the law.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Mendoza, Quisumbing,
Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
TSN, 21 January 1997, pp. 4-7.
[2]
Id., 13 January 1997, p. 20.
[3]
Id., p. 23.
[4]
Id., p. 13.
[5]
Id., pp. 14 and 16.
[6]
Id., 21 January 1997, pp. 8-9.
[7]
Capt. Banaw did not explain what he meant by "critical," but the
presence
of the Philippine Army Special Forces and CAFGUs in that municipality
suggests
that it had something to do with communist rebels infesting the area.
[8]
TSN, 24 February 1997, p. 4.
[9]
Id., 13 January 1997, p. 7; Exh. "B-2."
[10]
Id., 25 February 1997, p. 24.
[11]
Id., p. 31.
[12]
Id., pp. 32-33.
[13]
Id., 26 February 1997, p. 5.
[14]
Id., p. 11.
[15]
Id., 17 March 1997, pp. 8, 9, 19 and 22.
[16]
Decision penned by Judge Anastacio I. Lobaton, RTC-Br. 44, Bacolod City.
[17]
People v. Tañedo, G.R. No. 110405, 2 January 1997, 266 SCRA 34.
[18]
Art. 11, par. 1, The Revised Penal Code 6.
[19]
People v. Baniel, G.R. No. 108492, 15 July 1997, 275 SCRA 654.
[20]
People v. Dinglasan, G.R. No.101312, 28 January 1997, 267 SCRA 26, 44.
[21]
Accused-appellant Jimmy Alib was only fifteen (15) years old at the
time
of the commission of the crime in 1996 and sixteen (16) years old at
the
time of his sentencing in 1997.
[22]
Art. 196. Dismissal of the case. - If it is shown to the satisfaction
of
the court that the youthful offender whose sentence has been suspended
has behaved properly and has shown his capability to be a useful member
of the community, even before reaching the age of majority, upon
recommendation
of the Department of Social Welfare, it shall dismiss the case and
order
his final discharge.cralaw:red
Art. 197. Return of
the Youthful Offender to Court. - Whenever the youthful offender has
been
found incorrigible or has willfully failed to comply with the
conditions
of his rehabilitation programs, or should his continued stay in the
training
institution be inadvisable, he shall be returned to the committing
court
for the pronouncement of judgment.cralaw:red
When the youthful offender
has reached the age of twenty-one while in commitment, the court shall
determine whether to dismiss the case in accordance with the next
preceding
article or to pronounce the judgment of conviction. In any case covered
by this article, the youthful offender shall be credited in the service
of his sentence with the full time spent in actual commitment and
detention
effected under the provisions of this Chapter. |