THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAIME CAPITO @ JIMMY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, TOMAS SUPAT, CELES­TINO COLLADO @ DODONG, AND CESAR MARATA @ LOLOY, DEFENDANTS-A…

People versus Supat

The Case

This is People versus Supat, a criminal appeal from a conviction for robbery with homicide. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Jaime Capito, Tomas Supat, Celestino Collado, Cesar Marata, and several others for a nighttime raid on the home of Hadji Mohamad Nol Akil in Zamboanga del Norte, in which the household was held at gunpoint and bound with rope, valuables and firearms were taken, and the old man was shot dead. The case matters to a reviewee for one central reason: it is a clean, quotable illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the identification of the accused and the defense of alibi — when eyewitness identification is positive, when alibi collapses, and why conjecture is not evidence.

Procedural History

The accused were charged before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte. Trial proceeded only against Jaime Capito, Celestino Collado, Tomas Supat, and Cesar Marata, because two of their companions remained at large. After trial, the court acquitted Jaime Capito on reasonable doubt, but convicted Collado, Supat, and Marata of robbery with homicide, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the victim in the amounts stated in the decision. The three convicted accused appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in March 1968.

Facts

For years before the incident, Hadji Akil and his wife Amina Sapihi farmed and kept the proceeds of each harvest in a trunk inside their house in barrio Polandoc, Sindangan. At about midnight of February 20, 1963, the family was asleep except Amina, who was awake preparing her buyo. Three big kerosene lamps lit the house, one near the door of Hadji Akil's room, one in Fatima's room, and one where Abdul Salam slept; each room measured about three by five square meters. The main door was closed but unlocked. Amina heard a truck stop nearby, and then two men entered.

She recognized them although she did not know their names: one was Jaime Capito, a companion of her son Samat on the national road project, and the other was Tomas Supat, who a week earlier had come to the house offering to sell a firearm, had taken a meal there, and had spoken with her husband. The two men went into Hadji Akil's room, roused him, and beat him. Amina ran to Fatima's room for help and there saw Celestino Collado and Cesar Marata hogtying Latip, Haron, and Fatima. Returning to her husband's room, she saw Capito holding the old man's hands while Supat fired one shot into the air and then two shots into the body. Hadji Akil fell dead. Collado seized Amina, tied her hands, and warned her not to shout. The robbers ransacked the trunks and carried away money, jewelry worth 840 pesos, a .45 caliber pistol worth 300 pesos, a shotgun worth 200 pesos, and other effects.

Abdul Salam Akil, roused by the shots, grappled with a masked man at the door; when the man fell and cried "Loloy, help," the second masked man struck Abdul Salam with a pistol handle, and as the struggle went on Loloy's mask slipped to his neck, and Abdul Salam recognized him as Cesar Marata, whom he knew from basketball games in Sindangan. Latip Halid likewise recognized Marata at close range under the bright lamp. Fatima Akil recognized the two unmasked men who entered her room as Capito and Collado, both of whom had been in the house before. The day after, the police recovered the ropes used to tie the victims, and a schoolteacher testified that the rope came from the flagpole of the Lipakan school, about two kilometers from Marata's house. The physician's necropsy found two gunshot wounds through the body and an incised wound above the eyebrow, with internal hemorrhage and shock as the cause of death.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the identity of Tomas Supat, Celestino Collado, and Cesar Marata as the perpetrators of the robbery with homicide.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi interposed by Tomas Supat was sufficiently proven to overcome the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the qualifying and aggravating circumstances alleged, including recidivism against Supat and Collado, were duly established.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote the penal provisions in full, but it applies the crime of robbery with homicide and the rules on evidence bearing on identity and alibi. The controlling principle on alibi is that it must exclude the possibility of the accused's presence at the scene:

To sustain the plea of alibi, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the offense, and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.

This bears directly on Supat, whose own witnesses placed him in Dipolog at three o'clock in the afternoon and again the next morning, leaving the whole night unaccounted for.

On the weight of identification, the Court applied the settled rule that positive identification by credible witnesses prevails over alibi:

The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses.

This is the rule that decides the case against all three appellants.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that identity was established beyond reasonable doubt. Against Supat, the argument that Amina could not have recognized him was pure conjecture: there was no showing that her eyesight was blurred or defective, the rooms were well lit and small, Supat wore no mask, and he had been in the house a week before. Against Collado, the Court rejected the claim that Amina's and Fatima's identification was unreliable, stressing that the house was well lighted, Collado was unmasked, and the witnesses were near him. The Court added a memorable line: the victims of atrocities have a peculiar aptness and capability of identifying their tormentors, goaded by anger, hatred, and suffering. Against Marata, the identification by Abdul Salam and Latip Halid, at close range under a bright lamp, was positive and credible.

On the second issue, the Court found Supat's alibi unbelievable. His wife's story — traveling three hours to Dipolog with their youngest child, leaving six children alone, merely to collect fifty pesos and to buy nails of unknown measurement — was contrary to human experience, since nails come in standard sizes. Worse, the deed of sale of the car showed Supat had already received the full two thousand pesos in cash, contradicting the claim of an unpaid balance. The policeman's testimony placed Supat in Dipolog only at three o'clock in the afternoon and the next morning, leaving time to travel the hundred kilometers to Polandoc, commit the crime at midnight, and return. The Court held that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification.

On the third issue, the Court noted that Supat's prior conviction for robbery in 1956 was of record and not denied, establishing recidivism, and that the aggravating circumstances attendant to the crime were duly considered in imposing the penalty.

Doctrine

Three rules a Bar candidate should be able to write. First, alibi is a weak defense; it succeeds only when the accused proves he was elsewhere and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Second, positive identification by credible witnesses prevails over alibi, especially where the scene was well lighted, the accused was unmasked, and the witnesses were close to him. Third, conjecture is not evidence; attacks on a witness's eyesight, perception, or opportunity to observe must rest on proof, not on speculation. These rules tie directly to the quoted principles on alibi and identification.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Tomas Supat, Celestino Collado, and Cesar Marata for robbery with homicide and upheld the penalties and awards of damages, while Jaime Capito remained acquitted.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, and conjecture is not evidence. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of alibi, the weight of eyewitness identification under good lighting, and the treatment of recidivism as an aggravating circumstance.