THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO URQUIA, JR., ALIAS “CARDOHAY”, JUAN PARAJES ALIAS “JAIME SOLAPAS”, VIRGILIO VALLEJO ALIAS “VIRGILIO ESPINOLA”, LEO…

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 27, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, accused Ricardo Urquia,
Jr. alias ‘Cardohay‘ Virgilio
Vallejo alias ‘Virgilio Espinola‘,
Leoncito Intoy alias ‘Dodo’
and Rolando Zambales are found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of Robbery with Multiple
Homicide.  Each of them is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
to pay solidarily the heirs of their victims, Exuperancio Cosmiano, Sixta A. Cosmiano, Nonita A. Cosmiano and Cesario A. Cosmiano, civil
indemnity in the sum of P30,000.00 for each of the
deceased, or a total of P120,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency; and to pay the costs.

“For lack of sufficient evidence to convict him, accused Juan Parajes is acquitted.” (Rollo,
p. 47)

The amended information
filed against the appellant and eight
other accused states:

“That at approximately 10:00 o’clock in the evening, October 1, 1985, in barangay
Tapi, municipality of Cantilan,
province of Surigao del Sur,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, Ricardo Urquia, Jr., alias ‘Cardohay‘, Juan Parajes alias
‘Jaime Solapas‘, Virgilio
Vallejo alias ‘Virgilio Espinola‘,
Leoncito Intoy alias
‘Dodo’, Roberto Parajes, Esteban Parajes,
Bernardino Cuartero, Rudy Miranda and Rolando Zambales, armed with M-16 Armalite
rifle, carbine rifle, .38 caliber revolver, small sharp pointed bolos and axe,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did, then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the
house of Barangay Captain and Mrs. Exuperancio O. Cosmiano by
passing thru the window which is not intended for entrance or egress and while
inside hogtied Sixta Azarcon
Cosmiano, Nenita Azarcon Cosmiano, Cesario Azarcon Cosmiano and Barangay Captain Exuperancio Oletriz Cosmiano and
while the said victims were
defenseless, the above-named accused with intent to gain, rob, take, steal and
carry away the following:

‘Cash money of unestimated
amount, Necklace, wrist watch, ring of undetermined value; and other personal
properties of the victims’,

and in the same occasion and by reason
thereof, by means of violence with evident premeditation, treachery and abuse
of superior  strength, and with intent to
kill, same accused with the use of small sharp pointed bolos, axe and other
deadly weapons willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and wound
the following victims, with the following injuries:

EXUPERANCIO O. COSMIANO:

1.      Clean cut wound 6.5 inches in
length located across the neck exposing the tracheal tube and the
esophagus.

2.
  Clean cut wound 3 inches in length located on
the left chest immediately above the left sub-costal margin and penetrating the
abdominal cavity.

3.
  Clean cut wound 1 centimeter in length
located on right abdomen immediately to the right and above the umbilicus and
penetrating the abdominal cavity.

4.
  Clean cut wound 2.5 inches in length located
on the posterior surface of the left elbow.

SIXTA A. COSMIANO:

1.     
Clean cut wound 3 inches in length
located on the middle 3rds of the right latero-posterior
surface of the neck and 2 inches in depth.

2.     
Clean cut wound 3 inches in length
located immediately below the above injury and 2 inches in depth.

3.     
Clean cut wound semi-V shaped 1.5
inches in length located on the right lateral surface of the abdomen along the
right axillary line and the subcostal
margin penetrating the abdominal cavity.

NONITA A. COSMIANO:

1.     
Clean cut wound 5 inches in length
located across the right ear injuring the underlying bone tissue.

2.
  Slit wound 1 centimeter in length located on
the left chest between the sternum and the left nipple along the fifth intercostal-space penetrating the chest by 4 inches depth.

CESARIO A. COSMIANO:

1.     
Clean cut wound 7 inches in length
located across the base of the nape injuring the first cervical vertebrae.

2.     
Clean cut wound 3 inches in length
located at the base left posterolateral surface of
the neck.

3.
  Multiple clean cut wound, 4 in number from 1
centimeter to 1 inch in length located at the left interscapular
area and located penetrating the thoracic cavity with about 3 inches in depth.

WHICH INJURIES CAUSED THEIR instantaneous
death, to the damage and prejudice of their heirs as follows:

P120,000.00    – as
indemnity for the death of the four victims;

40,000.00      – as
actual damages;

40,000.00     – as moral damages; and

20,000.00     – as exemplary damages

CONTRARY TO LAW.  (Article 294 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Code) with the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and treachery,
and with the following aggravating circumstances:

1.     
Abuse of Superior
strength.

2.     
That the crime was committed with
violence, treachery and intimidation

3.     
Cruelty; and

4.     
That the crime was committed in
the nighttime purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the
offense.” (Rollo, p. 11-13)

All the accused except Roberto
Parajes and Esteban Parajes
who are still at large, pleaded not
guilty.  On August 22, 1989, the case against accused Rudy Miranda
and Bernardino Cuartero
was dismissed on the ground that evidence of the prosecution has failed to establish their participation in the crime.  (Records, pp. 577-578)

The prosecution evidence
upon which the trial court based its
findings of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is as follows:

xxx                               xxx                               xxx

“x x x At
about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of October 1, 1985, the late Sixta A. Cosmiano was at the
table in the kitchen of her house at Barangay Tapi, Cantilan, Surigao del Sur, peeling
‘tuba-tuba’ (a medicinal plant believed to relieve muscle pains).  In front
of and watching her was prosecution witness Maricor Coleto, who is the niece of her husband and living with,
being sent to school by them.  Her
daughter, the late Nonita A. Cosmiano,
was urinating in the comfort room which was adjacent to the kitchen.  Her son, the late Cesario
A. Cosmiano, was in his room resting, whereas her husband, the late Exuperancio
Cosmiano, then the Barangay
Captain of Tapi, had gone out about an hour earlier
to attend the barangay community rosary.  Suddenly, Nonita
noticed strangers in the kitchen and shouted to her mother saying ‘Nay, jari tawo‘.  Instinctively, Sixta
and Maricor ran to the sala
to alarm Cesario, who must have also heard the shout
of his sister and went out of his room. 
Before he could verify, Nonita was brought in
by two strangers, who then and there
ordered them to drop to the floor, face against it.  Cesario was
immediately hogtied by the two, using rattan strips.  One of the two then opened the sala door to let in their two companions.  Ordered to turn over her money, Sixta went inside her bedroom and when she came back, she
handed to them unspecified amount, which was the income of her tricycle that
day.  She was again ordered to drop to
the floor, which she did.  Thereafter, Nonita and Cesario were stripped
of their wrist watches, after which one of the strangers asked food from Maricor, who helped them to the kitchen.

“While the four were eating with Maricor
watching them, another fellow went up and warned the group that Exuperancio Cosmiano was
coming.  When the latter arrived, the
group immediately hogtied him also and divested him of his money.  The commotion in the Cosmiano
residence attracted the attention of their nearest neighbor, a certain Beto, who came to inquire what was happening, but he was
chased away by two members of the group of robbers.

“While in the hogtied position, together with his wife and two
children, Exuperancio was stabbed by one of the
robbers.  Injured, he cried to his wife
saying, ‘Titay, mamatay na gajod ako‘
(Titay, I will die). 
At this point, Maricor fainted and when she
regained consciousness, the robbers were gone and all her companions were
butchered and lying motionless on the floor. 
She called their names one by one and when nobody answered, she ran to
her Mano Beto’s house and
told his wife that the Cosmianos were robbed and
murdered.  Beto’s
wife in turn told her that Beto tried to verify what
was happening but was chased by the group.

xxx                               xxx                               xxx

“Maricor Coleto
did not know the names of the robbers but swore that she would recognize them
if ever she saw them again.  On the witness
stand she identified accused Ricardo Urquia, Jr.
alias ‘Cardohay‘ as one of them and was, in fact, the
one who stabbed her Tatay Estoy
(Exuperancio Cosmiano)
after the latter was hogtied by the robbers. 
She also identified accused Virgilio Vallejo and
Rolando Zambales as the two persons who came from the
kitchen and who took her Auntie Nita (Nonita Cosmiano) to the sala, ordered
her, her Auntie Nita, Eyo Sario
(Cesario Cosmiano) and Nanay Titay (Sixta
A. Cosmiano) to drop to the floor, face against it,
and hogtied Cesario Cosmiano.  Rolando Zambales
was also the one who asked food from her. 
She likewise identified accused Leoncito Intoy as the one who went up the house to alarm his
companions, the four Robbers, that Exuperancio Cosmiano was coming.

“Early the following morning, Cantilan
Police led by Commander Lt. Mahilum investigated the
incident.  With them was Dr. Luciano Ortega, Rural Health Physician of Cantilan, who conducted the post mortem examination of the
four deceased-victims.  He found them to
have sustained the following injuries, which caused their instantaneous deaths:

EXUPERANCIO O. COSMIANO:

1.     
Clean cut wound 6.5 inches in
length located across the neck exposing the tracheal tube and the esophagus.

2.     
Clean cut wound 3 inches in length
located on the left chest immediately above the left subcostal
margin and penetrating the abdominal cavity.

3.     
Clean cut wound 1 centimeter in
length located on right abdomen immediately to the right and above the
umbilicus and penetrating the abdominal cavity.

4.     
Clean cut would 2.5 inches in
length located on the posterior surface of the left
elbow.

SIXTA A COSMIANO:

1.     
Clean cut wound 3 inches in length
located on the middle 3rds of the right latero-posterior
surface of neck and 2 inches in depth.

2.     
Clean cut wound 3 inches in length located immediately below the above
injury and 2 inches in depth.

3.     
Clean cut wound semi-V shaped 1.5
inches in length located on the right lateral surface of the abdomen along the
right axillary line and the subcostal
margin penetrating the abdominal cavity.

NONITA A. COSMIANO:

1.     
Clean cut wound 5 inches in length
located across the right ear injuring the underlying bone tissue.

2.     
Slit wound 1 centimeter in length
located on the left chest between the sternum and the left nipple along the
fifth intercostal space penetrating the chest by 4
inches depth.

CESARIO A. COSMIANO:

1.     
Clean cut wound 7 inches in length
located across the base of the nape injuring the first cervical vertebrae.

2.     
Clean cut wound 3 inches in length
located at the base left posterolateral surface of
the neck.

3.     
Multiple clean cut wound, 4 in
number from 1 centimeter to 1 inch in length located at the left interscapular area and both penetrating the thoracic cavity
with about 3 inches in depth.

Recovered from the Crime Scene were a hatchet (Exhibit
“J”) and a small bolo (Exhibit “K”).  While Lt. Mahilum
was investigating the lone survivor of the massacre, Maricor
Coleto, on his instruction, Pat. Roberto Tucong prepared a Sketch indicating, among other things,
the relative positions and conditions of the victims and the locations of the
hatchet and small bolo.  Photographs were
also taken (Exhibits “L”, “M”, “N”,
“O”, and “P”, and series).” (Rollo,
pp. 31-35)

The appellant’s defense
on the other hand is as follows:

xxx                               xxx                               xxx

“Accused Ricardo Urquia, Jr. claimed
that on the time of the Robbery in question, he was in Surigao City
and could not have participated in it. 
In fact, the day before, on September 30, 1985, he left Cantilan early in the morning bound for Surigao
City to attend the hearing of the
Piracy Case of his son-in-law, herein
accused Juan Parajes, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1980 in the sala
of Judge Rola, scheduled the following day, October
1, 1985.  And early in the morning on
this date, he was in the Provincial Jail visiting his son-in-law and, together,
they went to Court, where they met defense counsel Atty. Deodiro
Ravelo.  The
case was however not heard that day due to the absence of prosecution
witnesses, consequently, ordered reset the following day, October
2, 1985.  He stayed in Surigao City until the Case of his son-in-law was
tried.  He stayed in the house of his
father, Ricardo Urquia, Jr..  On being informed by his daughter Amalia that he was implicated in the Robbery, he secured
Certifications from Atty. Deodiro Ravelo,
Second Assistant Provincial Fiscal Pedro Azarcon,
Atty. Oscar Pospia of CLAO and Provincial Jail Warden
Antonio Morales on his presence in Court and/or in the Provincial Jail
at Surigao City on October 1, 2, and 3, 1985.  Atty. Ravelo, Atty.
Pospia and Fiscal Azarcon
took the witness stand and identified the respective Certifications they issued
and testified on accused Ricardo Urquia’s presence in
Court.  Antonio Morales identified the
Record of Criminal Case No. 1980.

“Ricardo Urquia, Jr. further claimed
that he did not know any of his co-accused, except his son-in-law Juan Parajes, before October
1, 1985.  He knew them only
after his arrest and when he was already in the Provincial Jail at Tandag, Surigao del Sur.  But he knew the deceased-victim Exuperancio Cosmiano, the latter
being the second cousin of his mother, whose mother is a Cosmiano.

“He suspected that the motive for implicating him in the
robbery and slaughter of the Cosmianos was his having
killed in self-defense the late
Samuel Azarcon, who was the brother of the
deceased-victim Sixta A. Cosmiano,
and that the Cosmianos and the Azarcons
were out to grab his fishpond, and even burned his house at Tapi,
Cantilan, forcing him to flee to Manila for
safety.  It was in Manganan,
Fairview, Quezon City, where he was arrested
by four policemen, first taken to the City Jail and later brought to Surigao del Sur
and detained in the Provincial Jail.” (Rollo,
pp. 36-37)

From the four accused who
were convicted, only Urquia, Jr. and Intoy filed their notice of appeal.  (Records, p. 730 and p. 732) Counsel for Intoy, however, failed to file the required appellant’s
brief.  We are therefore, constrained to
dismiss the appeal of Intoy.

Urquia, Jr. is then, the sole appellant in this
case.  He raises the following assignment
of errors, to wit:

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT SUSTAINING THE
DEFENSE OF ALIBI BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE SUPPOSED
POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF APPELLANT BY LONE EYEWITNESS TO THE CRIME.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ASSUMING THAT THE
ROBBERY AND MASSACRE IN QUESTION WAS WELL PLANNED WITH VENDETTA AS A POSSIBLE
MOTIVE.

III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED?APPELLANT
OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.  (Appellant’s brief, p. 9)

The first and third assigned errors question the trial court’s
finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 
The appellant contends that there was no positive identification made of
him by Maricor Coleto, the
sole prosecution eyewitness because of the following circumstances:  first, despite having known the appellant to
be a relative of the victim, Exuperancio, Coleto did not pinpoint him right away to the police.  Coleto admitted that
she knew the identity of the appellant even before the incident and she knew
that the appellant was a relative of Exuperancio
(TSN, June 30, 1988, p. 13) but she failed to mention the identity of the
appellant in her affidavit and she denied knowing by name the appellant.  She testified that she was able to identify
him only due to his body build and white hair (TSN, June 29, 1988, p. 11)
Second, Coleto mentioned in her affidavit only
matters pertaining to the height, cap, shoes, and green jacket.  She failed to mention the appellant’s white hair when she gave the description
of the appellant to the police citing the flimsy reason that this was not asked
of her.  (TSN, June 29, 1988, p. 45) It
is in fact, doubtful that Coleto even saw the
appellant’s white hair as she said that the appellant was wearing a cap.

Another thing allegedly
that makes Coleto’s identification of the
appellant more doubtful is the fact that Coleto owed
so much to the victims that she would do anything to avenge their death, even to
the extent of testifying falsely against the appellant.  The appellant alleges that Coleto may have been motivated to testify against him
because of the long standing feud (started in 1963) with the Azarcons (family of Exuperancio’s
wife) over the appellant’s fishpond.  He
states that in an attempt to get his fishpond and harvest his coconuts, he got
into a fight with Samuel Azarcon, younger brother of Exuperancio’s wife, whom he subsequently killed.  (TSN, December 22, 1989, p. 24) However, he
was found to have killed Samuel in self-defense (Exh.
12, Records, pp.668-679)

Aside from these
circumstances that belie Coleto’s positive
identification of the appellant, the appellant also contends that Coleto’s testimony in itself is not credible. Throughout
her testimony, there was no indication that Exuperancio
or any of the three victims gave a
hint as to the identity
of the appellant despite the fact that Exuperancio
and the appellant knew each other as they
were distant cousins.  It is unnatural
that the victim having known his killer did not even plead to the appellant to
spare his life.  Likewise, it is also not
in keeping with normal behavior for the appellant to ask if Exuperancio
was the barangay captain, as narrated by Coleto, since the
appellant knew the victim already.

The guilt of the appellant has been established beyond reasonable
doubt.  The above-mentioned circumstances
that negate the positive identification of the appellant by Coleto
were all satisfactorily explained.

The failure of Coleto
to mention appellant’s identity in her affidavit despite having seen the
appellant several times before the incident (TSN, June 30, 1988, p. 13) is
attributed to the fact that she did not know the appellant’s name at that time.  She however, admitted in open court that
although she does not know the name of the appellant, she can recognize him if she sees him again.  (TSN, June 29, 1988, p. 11) It was not only the name of the appellant
that Coleto could not remember but she demonstrated
her facility not to remember names also with regards to the police
investigators who talked to her after the incident.  She said that she could not remember the
names of the policemen who were investigating her.  (TSN, June 29, 1988, pp. 27-28)

Likewise, the failure of Coleto to
mention the white hair of the appellant in her affidavit is not fatal.  It has been ruled that affidavits being taken
ex parte usually are incomplete and often
inaccurate, caused sometimes from partial suggestions, sometimes for want of
suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable
to recall the connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction
of the first suggestion of his memory and for his accurate recollection of all
that belongs to the subject (People v. Custodio, G.R.
No. 96230, May 27, 1991 citing People v. Laredo, 185 SCRA 383, 392-393, [1990])

In fact, the description given by Coleto
of the accused in her affidavit is very general. She just mentioned matters
about height, cap, shoes and jacket. 
(Exhibit 5, Records, p. 60)

Coleto’s identification of the
appellant is not tainted with improper motive. 
Coleto herself admitted that she would do
anything to help the Cosmianos (TSN, June 29, 1988,
p. 29).  It is then illogical for her to
point to the appellant if he was not really one of the perpetrators since this
would then stop the police from looking for the real killers.  Coleto had only one
motive, that is to seek justice for the killing of the
Cosmianos.

The motive attributed to Coleto by the
appellant is not substantiated.  The feud
started way back in 1963, and the killing of Samuel Azarcon
happened in 1978, before Coleto even went to live
with the Cosmianos. 
Coleto may not even have known of the feud as
it was between the appellant and the Azarcons and not
the Cosmianos. 
Also, between 1978 and 1985, there was no evident manifestation of the
feud, so Coleto may still have been unaware of the
situation.  Coleto,
young as she was, knew the gravity of the crime that she imputed to the
appellant.  It is hard to believe that at
her age, there would be hatred and vengeance in her heart towards the appellant
as to falsely testify against him.

In People
v. Paco, 170 SCRA 681, 688, (1989) we held:

“The motive imputed to the prosecution witness because of the
facility by which the accused can fabricate the same must be proved by clear
and sufficient evidence.  x x x In the absence of convincing
evidence that the principal prosecution witness acted because of improper
motives, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is
entitled to full faith and credit.”

As to the contention of the appellant on the incredibility of the
victims’ not having pleaded with the appellant despite their knowing him and
that of the appellant’s having asked Exuperancio if
he was the barangay captain, it has been held that
there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking
occurrence.  The working
of human minds, when placed under emotional stress, are unpredictable
and people react differently.  (People v.
Ponce, G.R. No. 83694, May 31, 1991) Aside from this, the victims may not have
seen the perpetrators as they were asked to lie face down on the floor.  (TSN, June 29, 1988, p. 6) Exuperancio, on the other hand, even if he had the
opportunity to recognize the perpetrators may not have seen the need to plead
for his life as he may have thought that they were just out to rob them.  With regards to the question to Exuperancio if he was the barangay
captain, Coleto did not categorically state that it
was the appellant who asked such question, she said
that she could not remember
anymore who asked that question.  (TSN,
June 30, 1988, pp. 18-19)

The appellant was positively identified by Coleto.  The facts outlined in the case were conducive
to proper identification.  The sala where the stabbing took place was lighted by a moron
lamp (TSN, June 29, 1988, p. 47) The kitchen where Coleto pointed out the food to the accused was also lighted
by another moron lamp.  The light given
out by the moron lamps although not as bright as that given out by an  electric light is sufficient to light an
area.  These moron lamps are self
improvised lamps, where a bottle, such as that of a San Miguel beer bottle, is
filled with kerosene with a cloth serving as a wick.  (TSN, June 30, 1988, p. 8) Moreover, Coleto had the opportunity to see the accused more closely
as she did not leave the kitchen right away after pointing out the food to the
accused but remained standing in the kitchen for a while (TSN, June 29, 1988,
p. 48)

In view of the positive identification of the appellant by Coleto, his defense of alibi will then, have to fail.  The defense of alibi being inherently weak
cannot prevail against the prosecution’s positive identification of the
appellant.  (People v. Sabellano, G.R. Nos. 93932-33, June 5, 1991; People v. Toribio, G.R. No. 88098, June 26, 1991) We agree with the
trial court’s rejection of the appellant’s alibi.  We quote:

“Accused Ricardo Urquia, Jr. claims
that he was in Surigao
City at the time the offense
charged was committed.  He produced
Certifications issued by 2nd Assistant Provincial Fiscal Pedro Azarcon (Exhibit “6”), CLAO lawyer Atty. Oscar Pospia (Exhibit “7”) and his own counsel, Atty. Deodiro Ravelo (Exhibit “8”)
to the effect that he was seen in the sala of Judge Rola, RTC, Branch 30, Surigao
City, in the morning of October 1, 2 and 3, 1985, in connection with the
scheduled hearing of the Piracy with Murder and Frustrated Murder Case of his
son-in-law Juan Parajes.  It is claimed that the case was called but
not tried on said dates due to the absence of prosecution witnesses.  Assuming this to be true, it did not discount
the possibility of said Accused’s presence at the
scene of the crime in Tapi, Cantilan,
Surigao del Sur, precisely at the time it was committed in the evening
of October 1, 1985.  Cantilan is not
really far from Surigao
City – at least, not far enough to
prevent accused from being there to commit the crime.  According to Leoncito
Intoy on cross-examination, he left Cantilan on board a passenger jeep at 6:45 in the morning on October 1, 1985 and arrived in Surigao City
at 10:00 o’clock that same
morning.  He thus negotiated the distance
in three (3) hours and fifteen (15) minutes riding on a passenger jeep.  Had he taken a service vehicle he could have
reached Surigao
City very much earlier.  By nature and rules and regulations,
passenger jeeps travel much slower than a service pick-up for instance, not to
mention the fact that, normally, they pick up and unload passengers along the
way, which considerably delays arrival at destination.  Actually, the distance between Cantilan, Surigao del Sur, and Surigao City
is only about 120 kilometers, which private service vehicle negotiates in 2 hours or less, and passenger
jeeps, 3 hours or less.  Besides, Surigao City
is also accessible by sea from Cantilan and vice
versa, and the usual sea craft is a motorized banca
locally known as “pamboat” or “pumpboat“, which travels fast.  x x x The whole day and evening of October 1, 1985, accused
Ricardo Urquia, Jr. was free to go to Cantilan, where he was residing, assuming he really went to
Surigao City the day before, and be back in Surigao City early in the morning of October 2, to create
the impression that he did not leave the City on October 1.  It is not therefore altogether improbable or
impossible for him to commit, as he did, this ghastly crime.” (Rollo, pp. 42-43)

For the defense of alibi to prosper, it
is not enough to prove that the appellant was somewhere when the crime was
committed but that he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime (People v. Arenas,
G.R. No. 92068, June 5, 1991; People v. Carcedo, G.R.
No. L-48085, June 26, 1991) In the case at bar, although the appellant may
prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he could not
prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene or at
the vicinity thereof at the approximate time the crime was committed.

The testimonies of Villaluz Azarcon and Maximo Sual, stating that they saw the appellant at the river of Lankogue, Tapi, Cantilan at 4:00 in the afternoon of October 1, 1985 (TSN,
May 19, 1988, p. 14) and at 1:00 in the
morning of October 2, 1985 (TSN, May 19, 1988, pp. 27-28) respectively, are
dismissed by the appellant as having no probative value in the second assigned
error.

Suffice it to say that even without Villaluz
and Maximo’s testimonies, Coleto’s
testimony standing alone is enough to convict the appellant.  It is well-settled that the testimony of a
single eyewitness, if found convincing and trustworthy by the trial court, is
sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  (People v. Catubig,
G.R. No. 71626, March 22, 1991) In the instant case, the trial court found the
testimony of Maricor Coleto
to be credible.  The trial court
observed:

x x x                             x x x                             x x x

“About her clear and positive identification of accused
Ricardo Urquia, Jr., Virgilio
Vallejo, Rolando Zambales and Leoncito
Intoy as among the Robbers who robbed and massacred
the deceased-victims, the Court has no doubt. 
She stood firm and was unshaken by
the long and grueling cross-examinations of the three defense counsel,
delivering a straight forward and natural style of testimonies, which appealed
to the Court as a sign of sincerity, let alone the fact that her story is
logical, probable and very credible.” (Rollo, p.
41)

The trial court designated the crime as robbery with multiple homicide.  However, in
the case of People v. Nunag, G.R. No. 92570, April 22, 1991, we held that:

“The offense is denominated as robbery with homicide
regardless of the number of homicides
or injuries committed.”

The appellant therefore, is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of robbery with homicide. 
The indemnity to the heirs of the victims is raised to P50,000.00 for each deceased or a total of P200,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with
the aforesaid modification.  The appeal
of Leoncito Intoy is
DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur.