G.R. No. L-18519. October 30, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MACABATO ALI, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
DIZON, J.:
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Sur in Criminal Case
No. 1775 finding appellant Macabato Ali guilty,
beyond reasonable doubt, of murder, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided for by law,
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Cabib Dipatuan in the sum of P6,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and
to pay his proportionate share of the costs.
It is not disputed that
in the morning of February 23, 1955 Cabib Dipatuan was killed in Baraas, Malabang, Lanao del Sur. This gave rise to the filing of three separate informations for murder in the
Court of First Instance of said province:
one against herein appellant (Criminal Case No. 1775), another against
Faisal Bogabong (Criminal Case No. 1580) and the
third against Omar Alo (Criminal Case No.
1812). After a joint trial upon a plea of not guilty entered by the defendants,
Ali and Bogabong were found guilty of murder and
sentenced accordingly, while Alo was acquitted on
the ground of reasonable doubt. Ali and Bogabong
appealed, but the latter, with our approval, withdrew his appeal on April 25, 1956 (G. R. No. L-18520).
The appealed judgment is based upon the testimony of Dipumbai Bantuas
and Kilala Panangila-an
– eye witnesses to the commission of the crime charged. For this reason, appellants main contention
as expounded in his brief is that the trial court erred in giving credit to the
testimony of said witnesses instead of accepting as true that given by the
witnesses for the defense, thus reducing the issue herein to a mere question
of credibility.
Dipumbai Bantuas,
single and twenty-five years of age at the time of the trial, testified that in
the morning of February 23, 1955, her now deceased brother-in-law Cabib Dipatuan, left their house
at Baraas, Malabang, Lanao, to take a bath in a nearby river, followed by the
other prosecution witness Kilala Panangila-an,
a teenager student at the time, and one known as Salim;
that sometime after they had left the house she also followed them to the
river; that upon reaching that place she heard the report of a gun and when she looked towards the direction
from which the sound came, she saw Ali, Bogabong
and Alo on the other side of the river aiming and
firing at Dipatuan; that after the first volley of
shots, Dipatuan ran away for cover towards the embankment
of the river leading towards her house, but successive shots fired by appellant
and his companions hit him and killed him almost instantaneously; that
immediately thereafter she informed their relatives of the incident and then
went to make report thereof to the P.C. station where she was able to contact
Sgt. Mendiola, and that the latter reduced her declaration into writing three days later
(Exhibit I); that the probable motive that impelled appellant and his companions
to commit the crime was this: both Ali
end Bogabong were frustrated suitors of her younger sister who chose to marry the deceased
a short time before he was killed.
The testimony of the other eye witness, Kilala
Panangila-an, who was practically right behind Cabib Dipatuan when the latter
was on his way to the nearby river to take a bath, is substantially to the same
effect. She testified that while Dipatuan was taking a bath in the river and while she and Salim were seated on
the nearby embankment, they suddenly heard shots fired from the opposite bank;
that when she looked towards that direction, she saw Ali and Bogabong firing at the deceased Dipatuan,
and as the latter attempted to run away, he was hit and fell right in front of
her; that the distance between the deceased Dipatuan,
while he was taking a bath in the river, and appellant and his companions, was
hardly eight or nine meters.
P.C. Sgt. Mendiola also took the
witness stand and testified that in the morning of February 23, 1955 prosecution
witness Dipumbai Bantuas
reported the killing of Dipatuan to the headquarters
and, as a result, by orders of his Commanding Officer, he immediately proceeded
to the place of the incident and to the house of the deceased where he saw his
dead body with several gunshot wounds, one at the back passing through the left
nipple, another at the thigh and still another in the forearm; that he then
questioned Dipumbai Bantuas
and Kilala Panangila-an,
both of whom pointed to appellant and Bogabong as the
ones who had killed Dipatuan, having thereafter
reduced their respective testimony into writing.
The evidence discloses that appellant and his companions were
well known to both Bantuas and Panangila-an. As a matter of fact, appellant and Bogabong had been unsuccessful suitors of Bantuas‘ younger sister.
It is true that, to discredit Bantuas‘
testimony, appellant testified that she had a grudge against him because he had
reported to their elders certain immoral relations between her and the third
accused, Omar Alo, for which, after due
investigation, Bantuas was fined P500.00 by Macaorao Balindong, Mayor of Malabang. The trial
court, however, found this to be without merit because said Mayor testified
that it was not true that he had imposed such a fine upon Bantuas.
Moreover, appellant admitted that he is a first degree cousin of Bantuas. As there is no credible evidence showing
prejudice on Bantuas‘ part, we do not believe that
she would have imputed to appellant the commission of such a grave offense as
that of murder if it was not true that he was really guilty thereof.
Anent his defense of alibi, appellant claimed that in the morning
in question he was in the house
of his father at sitio Capialo,
five kilometers away, more or less, from sitio Baraas, the scene of the incident; that between six and
seven o’clock that morning, he was giving lessons on the Koran to a housemate
named Macalangon and it was only about one o’clock
that day that people passing by their house informed him that Cabib had been killed, for which reason, after he had taken
his lunch, he went to Baraas to find out the truth.
His testimony was corroborated by that of Macalangon.
It is well settled, however, that alibi is a defense very easily
concocted, and for this reason, to be sustained, it must be supported with
strong and unassailable evidence. Appellant’s evidence in this case is
far from being of this nature and can not overcome nor sufficiently weaken that
of the prosecution witnesses mentioned heretofore clearly and positively pointing
to him and to his companions as the ones who had killed Dipatuan.
WHEREFORE, finding that the appealed judgment is in accordance
with law and the evidence, the same is hereby affirmed, with his proportionate
share of the costs taxed against appellant.
Furthermore, the indemnity awarded in the appealed judgment is hereby
increased to P12,000.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Makalintal, J., did not take part.