PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TEODORO CARCEDO Y CARREDO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the January 12, 1978 Decision of the then Circuit
Criminal Court, 14th Judicial District, Cebu-Bohol, Cebu City, presided by Hon. Romeo M. Escareal,
finding the accused Milagros Camahalan y Baylosis and Teodoro Carcedo y Carredo, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide and murder, respectively, and
sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties imposed by
law, to indemnify jointly and
severally, the heirs of the deceased Pedro Camahalan
in the amount of P12,000.00, plus P8,000.00 in moral and exemplary damages, and
to pay the cost proportionately.

Milagros Camahalan y Baylosis, Teodoro Carcedo y Carredo and Elizardo Carcedo were charged in
the Circuit Criminal Court, 14th Judicial District, Cebu City,
with Parricide and Murder in an information which
reads:

“The State accuses Milagros Camahalan
for parricide, Teodoro Carcedo
and Elisardo Carcedo for
murder, committed as follows:

“That on or about May 2, 1977, in the Munici­pality of Malabuyoc, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused
Milagros Camahalan, a lawfully wedded spouse of one
Pedro Camahalan, conspiring and confe­derating
together with accused Teodoro Carcedo
and Elizardo Carcedo, the
latter being still at-large and shall be prosecuted separately once arrested,
with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery, nocturnity,
superior strength, consideration of a reward and craft, lured their victim on
an uninhabited place to better facilitate and accomplish their criminal plan
and design, and did then and there use personal violence upon the person of
said Pedro Camahalan by striking the latter from
behind with an empty bottle, hitting him on the nape, causing him to fall down,
and then and there throttled him and repeatedly struck his head with stones
thereby inflicting upon him fatal injuries which caused his death as a
consequence.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Upon arraignment, the accused, assisted by their respective
counsel de oficio, separately entered a plea of not
guilty to the crime charged
against them.

The factual background of this case as found by the trial court
is as follows:

“The accused Milagros Camahalan y Baylosis and the deceased victim Pedro Camahalan
were legally married by a Roman Catholic priest in Alegria,
Cebu, their marriage being entered in the local civil
registry on December 10, 1970 (Exhibit “F”). 
They have a son and the three of them stayed with Benita Baylosis, a 65-year-old woman, who had adopted Milagros, in
a house situated in sitio Abungon,
barrio Lomboc, Malabuyoc, Cebu.

“On May 21, 1977,
at around 4:00 o’clock in the
afternoon, Milagros and Pedro asked permission from Benita and left for the
seashore to go fishing.  The next day,
Milagros returned alone at around noontime, telling Benita that Pedro had gone
to Santander,
Cebu, to borrow money and will
return on Tuesday.  Later that afternoon,
some small children came and told Benita that Pedro was already dead and his
body had been brought to town by the police. 
As Benita was then sick, she sent Milagros to verify but the latter
never returned.  Benita learned
afterwards that Milagros had been jailed. 
After some time, Benita executed a written statement before the police
(Exhibit “A”).

“In that evening of May
21, 1977, Alma Licaros, a 12-year-old
student residing at barrio Montanesa, Malabuyoc, Cebu,
had gone to the novena prayers for the month of May.  After the novena, Alma
went to the store of one Inting Lim to return the
lighted Petromax lamp which was used in the
chapel.  At the store, she saw accused
Milagros Camahalan, her husband Pedro Camahalan, and one Elisardo Carcedo, seated inside and afterwards leave at around 10:00 o’clock p.m.  The next day, Alma
learned that Pedro had died and she saw his dead body in the beach, with the
nearest house some 50-60 meters away, and also a little distance from the store
of Inting Lim. 
After she told her mother
about seeing Pedro, Milagros and Elisardo the
previous evening, she was investigated by the police the day after the body was
found.

“Simplicio Daplas,
a 26-year old farmer residing also in barrio Montanesa,
Malabuyoc, Cebu,
went to the sea on May 20, 1977
and returned to his house at around 9:00 o’clock
a.m.  He saw a woman near his
house, whom he had not met before and who later turned
out to be the accused Milagros Camahalan.  He asked his wife who the woman was and also
asked the woman what her purpose was in being there.

“The woman replied that she was looking for Ely or Elisardo Carcedo.  Simplicio asked her
why and she said she had something to tell to Ely which she could not tell
anybody.  He pressed her to state her
purpose and she finally revealed that she wanted Ely to kill her husband
because she could not bear his maltreatment anymore and that he had even pushed
her adopted mother over a cliff.  Simplicio advised her not to go ahead with her plans but
separate from her husband since if she had him killed, it would be a sin
against God.

“However, Simplicio pointed to the woman
where Ely was living, which was across the creek from his own house some 60-70
meters away.  Ely was staying there with
his friend Manuel, while Ely’s younger brother Teodoro
was living in his own house at about the same distance from Simplicio’s
house.

“Simplicio learned about the incident
where Pedro Camahalan had been killed the next
day.  When he went fishing, he met a
policeman at the corner and told him about his encounter the previous day with
the woman.  The police had him execute a
statement on May 23, 1977
(Exhibits “1-MC” and “1-a-MC”).

“Sgt. Paulino Manlunas,
officer-in-charge of the Malabuyoc, Cebu police station, received a report of an
unusual incident in sitio Tapi,
barrio Montanesa, at 8:00
o’clock a.m. of May 22,
1977, from one Elpidio Detuya, a barrio resident. 
Together with five other policemen, he went to the crime scene and saw a
dead body which was identified later to be that of one Pedro Camahalan by a neighbor of the latter.

“Sgt. Manlunas saw injuries on the top
and back of the head, on the nape and on the throat of the victim.  He also saw an empty bottle of Tru-Orange and pieces of bloody stones.  There were streaks of blood from the body to
the seashore and the scene was in a secluded place at a very low portion of the
beach, with the nearest house belonging to Orencio Chu some 80 meters away, but obstructed by trees.  Sgt. Manlunas
brought the bottle (Exhibit “H”) and the two (2) pieces of bloody stones
(Exhibits “I” and “I-1”) with him and kept it in his office steel cabinet
before turning it over to the municipal court.

“He requested the barrio captain to have the dead body carried and
placed in the barrio chapel where Dr. Danilo Cabigon conducted an autopsy, after which contributions
were asked from the barrio people for expenses of burial as the victim had no
relatives.

“In the evening of May 22,
1977, at around 11:00 o’clock,
Milagros Camahalan arrived in the Malabuyoc
municipal building.  Because she admitted
her participation in the killing, she was placed in jail.  The police looked for witnesses and found Simplicio Daplas and Alma Licaros, whose statements were taken (Exhibits “B” and
“C”).  Later, the statement of Benita Baylosis was taken also.

Milagros Camahalan gave a statement
(Exhibit “D”) after she was informed of her constitutional rights and she
submitted to an investigation as she was telling only the truth, after which
she signed it and subscribed to it before the municipal judge.

“Sgt. Manlunas also declared that
Milagros was not arrested but came alone to the municipal building.  On May 23rd, she gave her first statement before
him, but a second statement on May 24th before Police Lt. Bancog,
Alegria Station Commander, where she excluded her
co-accused Teodoro Carcedo.  The first statement was thrown away by
administrative officer Debilleres without Sgt. Manlunas’ knowledge or consent after the second statement
was taken.

“On May 25th, Milagros executed a third statement which was the
same as her first statement given on May 23rd after telling Sgt. Manlunas that she gave the second statement only because
she was afraid of Lt. Bancog.  During that period, Milagros was not actually
placed in jail but was allowed to stay in the police station office as she was
sick and had to be treated by a doctor. 
Her first statement was not subscribed, while her second and third
statements were subscribed before the municipal judge.  Accused Teodoro Carcedo was implicated in the first and third statements
together with Elisardo Carcedo,
but in the second statement only Elisardo was
implicated.

“Sgt. Manlunas further declared that Teodoro Carcedo was taken into
custody for the first time on the 23rd of May, after he was picked up after
going to barrio Bato, Samboan,
Cebu and when he returned in
the evening to his house.  When brought
to the Malabuyoc municipal building, Teodoro denied any participation in the crime after
Milagros pointed to him, claiming that he could not be at the scene because he
had an altercation with his brother Elisardo who
chopped his fishing net.  When Milagros
insisted he was present at the killing, Teodoro said
that she was saying nonsense.

“After Lt. Bancog took the second
statement of Milagros, wherein Teodoro was excluded,
the latter was released, but re-arrested on board a bus in Alegria,
Cebu at 4:00 o’clock in the morning of the 27th of May after
Milagros executed her third statement implicating him again.

“Finally, Sgt. Manlunas declared that a buri bag (Exhibit “J”) identified to be
belonging to the victim and a T-shirt with red and white stripes and with
cut-off sleeves (Exhibit “E”) which allegedly belong to Teodoro
according to Milagros, were found also at the crime scene, together with a
piece of broken glass apparently coming from the neck of a bottle cap (Exhibit
“H-2”), which were turned over to the municipal judge.  While no evidence of a bonfire or empty shells
of seafood were found at the crime scene, however, Sgt. Manlunas
went to a nearby area near a bridge beside the seashore pointed to by Milagros
where he found bits of leftover food.

“Dr. Danilo R. Cabigon,
Municipal Health Officer of Malabuyoc, Cebu, was called by the police while attending
mass on May 22, 1977, to
examine the dead body of Pedro Camahalan.  He saw the body on a stretcher inside the
chapel in a state of rigor mortis, and estimated that
it had been dead less than 24 hours.  He
examined the wounds, removed the scalp and conducted an autopsy of the
head.  He prepared his post-mortem
examination report on the same day (Exhibit “G” and “G-1”) wherein he listed
and described his physical findings as follows:

‘PHYSICAL FINDINGS:

EXTREMITIES:

1.   Abrasion,
right wrist, dorsal portion, ½ inch long, obliquely directed.

2.   Abrasion,
right forearm, dorsal portion, ½ inch from wound
number 1, measuring ¼ inch, directed obliquely.

ABDOMEN

1.   Abrasion,
½ inch long, horizontal, located 1 inch below umbilicus.

2.   Abrasion,
three parallel abrasions, measuring 2.5 inches long, directed obliquely,
located in the abdomen, 1 inch below the lowest tip of the sternum.

HEAD AND NECK:

1.   Contusion,
measuring 1 ½ in diameter with superficial linear abrasions measuring 1 inch
long, directed horizontally, neck, left.

2.   Contusion,
measuring 1 ½ inch long with ½ inch abrasion, ½ inch below and parallel wound
number 1 (head and neck).

3.   Contusion
measuring 1 inch long with ¾ inch abrasion below and parallel wound number 2
(head and neck).

4.   Contusion
all around left eye.

5.   Wound,
lacerated ¾ inch long lateral and a little below lateral tip, right eyebrow.

6.   Wound,
lacerated, involving the whole thickness of the skin, subcutaneous tissues and
underlying muscles, measuring ½ inch, horizontal in direction located at the
frontal region.

7.   Wound,
lacerated, gaping, involving the whole thickness of the skin, subcutaneous
tissue and underlying muscles, 3 inches long, horizontally directed and located
at the left parietal region.

8.   Wound,
lacerated, 3 inches long, gaping, horizontal in direction, located at the
occipital region, 1 inch from the base of the skull.

9.   Fracture,
skull, occipital region with parts of brain tissue visible.

10. Wound,
lacerated, gaping 3 inches long, slightly oblique in direction, occipital
region ¼ inch above wound number 8.

11. Wound,
lacerated, 2.5 inches long, gaping, horizontal, ½ inch above wound number 10.

These multiple scalp wounds have rough,
irregular and ill-defined edges probably inflicted by a hard, solid, blunt
instru­ment.’

“Dr. Cabigan declared in his report that
the cause of death was ‘Hemorrhage, shock, secondary to violent physical
injuries (skull)’, that Wounds Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were fatal wounds, that
the wounds on the right forearm and wrist were defensive wounds, and that the
victim died instantly.  He saw the bottle
(Exhibit “H”) and the two pieces of stone (Exhibits “I” and “I-1”) inside the
chapel near the body during his examination, which could have caused the injuries
found on the victim’s body.  After the
autopsy, Dr. Cabigon saw the accused Milagros Camahalan who was brought to his clinic and because she was
weak and pale, he gave her medical (sic) for headaches.

“Accused Milagros Camahalan, testifying
in her own defense, declared as follows: 
The deceased victim, Pedro Camahalan, was her
husband, who died on May 21, 1977
in sitio Tapi, barrio Montanesa, Malabuyoc, Cebu, having been bludgeoned by Elisardo Carcedo.

“Milagros declared that in the early morning of May 20, 1977, she, her husband Pedro,
their only child, and Mama Benita (Baylosis) were in
their house in sitio Abungon,
barrio Lomboc. 
After they ate lunch, Milagros went to buy fish in the sea off barrio Montanesa some two hours walking distance away.  After buying some fish, she returned home and
passed the house of Simplicio Daplas
at around 4:00 o’clock p.m. to buy
smoked tuna fish.  Before reaching Daplas’ house, she met Elisardo Carcedo who is her second-degree nephew.

“Elisardo greeted her and commented that
she had been back from the city, to which she replied that it was just in time
for the fiesta in barrio Lomboc.  He asked her about her husband and if he had
the same traits still, which Milagros knew referred to Pedro’s being very
possessive and being angry at any person of either sex who visits her in her
house.  He added that if he had been
living long near her place, he would have killed Pedro long ago, and that he
had killed several persons in Negros
already.  She told him not to meddle with
their way of living and that what he said is against the laws of God and
man.  Elisardo
did not reply anymore and Milagros proceeded on her way to Daplas’
house.  After buying smoked fish from Daplas, she went home, arriving there at around 7:00 o’clock p.m.  Pedro was in the house and told her that he
was happy she was able to buy fish.  They
ate supper and retired for the night.

“The next day, May 21,
1977, Milagros, Pedro, their child and Mama Benita took their
breakfast and lunch home.  After lunch, Pedro
told Milagros to prepare some raw fish salad or ‘kinilaw’
which he would like to eat at the seashore. 
Milagros prepared the fish salad and then proceeded with Pedro for
barrio Montanesa, reaching the place at around 6:00 p.m. 
They met Elisardo Carcedo
who invited them to go to the seashore as his brother had just arrived from
fishing.  Milagros and Pedro accepted the
invitation and the three proceeded to the lower vicinity of the bridge near the
seashore.

“Elisardo made a bonfire while Milagros
and Pedro seated themselves.  Elisardo’s brothers, Doro and Rudy, joined them, together
with another man.  These persons were
catching shrimps with nets at the river mouth. 
Elisardo broiled shrimps on the embers and the
group ate the broiled shrimps with corn grits which Milagros had brought
along.  Elisardo
asked her if she had any money as he needed P10.00 to buy Anejo
rum.  Milagros gave him the money and he
bought the rum, which was drank by him, Pedro, Rudy
and Doro.  The unidentified man did not
drink but just stayed nearby.

“After a while, Elisardo walked some
distance away and was followed by Teodoro.  They talked with each other and then Elisardo returned to where Milagros and Pedro were
seated.  He smoked a cigarette and later
invited the couple to barrio Tapi to buy smoked
squid.  They agreed and they walked with
him about a kilometer away.  They passed
the store of Enting Lim at around 8:30 o’clock p.m.  Teodoro was not
with them.

“At barrio Tapi, they sat and Elisardo got one empty family-size Tru-Orange
bottle to buy tuba.  It was around 10:00 o’clock p.m. already by then.  Milagros and Pedro sat facing the sea waiting
for the arrival of the fishermen who were fishing in the sea with Petromax lights. 
Milagros was seated at the left of Pedro, while Elisardo
was seated a little to their front and about armslength
to her side.

“Suddenly, Milagros heard the sound of an impact.  When she turned to look, she saw Elisardo striking Pedro with a bottle which looked like
Exhibit “H”.  She approached Elisardo, telling him, ‘Do not do that Ely, because my
husband had not committed any offense.’ Elisardo
brushed her aside, telling her not to meddle so that she will not be
included.  Pedro also said, ‘Don’t do
that, Ely, are you going to kill me?’ Pedro had fallen on his back and Elisardo choked him. 
Teodoro suddenly appeared from behind a big
tree and helped choked Pedro who was resisting Elisardo.

“Afraid of Elisardo’s threats, Milagros
stayed away took the road towards her home. 
Elisardo caught up with her, panting, about a
kilometer on the way.  He told her to go
straight home and not to report to the authorities as he will also strike
her.  It was almost dawn already and
Milagros left Elisardo standing there.  She arrived home at around 8:00 o’clock a.m. already of May 22nd.  Mama Benita asked her where Pedro was and she
replied that he might be making a surveillance of her.  Afterwards, she lay down to rest.

“In the afternoon of that day, May 22nd, some small children came
and informed Milagros and Mama Benita that the dead body of Pedro had been
brought to Malabuyoc, Cebu.  Benita told Milagros to go to Malabuyoc immediately and she left at around 5:00 o’clock p.m.  She went to Alegria,
Cebu, to get a bus for Malabuyoc, but failing to get one, she walked to Malabuyoc, arriving there at almost curfew time.  Many policemen were there at the municipal
building and investigated her one after another but not in writing.  She was detained up to May 31, 1977.

“On May 23, 1977,
Milagros’ statement was taken in writing, and another one was also taken on May 25,
1977 (Exhibit “D”).  On May 26, 1977, she was again
investigated but no written statement was taken from her.  Milagros signed the statement (Exhibit “D”)
without reading it and neither was it read to her.  She signed and subscribed the same before a
judge because the police said that
if he (sic) signs it, they can help her and she will stay in jail only for one
night, and if not, they will either hang her or burn her.  She was also not feeling well when she signed
the statement.  While admitting that
there were portions in said statement which were true and some which were not
true, Milagros denied that she had agreed with Elisardo
to kill her husband, that she was present when Pedro was pounded with stones
and his wallet taken, that she was Elisardo’s
paramour and had slept with him after the killing, and that she had given
P12.00 to Elisardo after the killing of Pedro.

“Milagros declared further that it was not true she had passed by Simplicio Daplas’ house in the
morning of May 20th, and that she was looking for Elisardo
as she wanted to hire him to kill her husband who was abusing her and even
tried to push Benita.  She claimed that Simplicio bore a grudge against her ever since harvest time
last year when Simplicio and his wife stayed with her
in her house and she drove them out at night when Simplicio was drunk and mock a lady visitor.

“She likewise declared that she left when Elisardo
and Teodoro were choking Pedro as she was intending
to go to town to ask for help but Elisardo overtook
her on the way and threatened her. 
However, she admitted that, while there were several houses near the
scene of the incident, she did not go to any of them to ask for help.  She also admitted that even though she knew Elisardo to be a bad character with a police record in Malabuyoc and had even previously quarreled and boxed her
husband, she did not dissuade him from going to the beach that fateful night
with Elisardo. 
Furthermore, she admitted that the wallet (Exhibit “K”) and the buri hat (Exhibit “J”) belonged to Pedro.  Finally, she declared that it took her almost
seven (7) hours to leave the beach where Pedro was killed and reached her home
because she walked slowly.

“Police Sgt. Nicolas Echica, of the Alegria, Cebu, Police Station,
was presented by accused Milagros Camahalan to
declare that on May 23, 1977, he went at around noontime to the municipal
building of Malabuyoc, Cebu,
because he heard that the husband of Milagring was
killed in Dapit, Alegria, Cebu, but was later informed that it had happened in Sinangkang, Malabuyoc, Cebu.  He saw
Milagros being investigated in the
ofice of the Chief of Police.  He talked to her and she told him that she
was confused and hungry.  He asked her
why she had not eaten and she replied that she had no appetite.

“Sgt. Echica requested the guard to allow
Milagros to eat outside and he brought her to the market where she ate a
little.  He talked with her and told her
to tell the truth and she said that it was Ely and Doro who had killed her
husband.  However, she did not relate
about the manner she was investigated. 
Afterwards, Sgt. Echica returned her to the
municipal building and he went home at around 12:30
o’clock in the afternoon to Alegria, Cebu.” (Decision, Criminal Case No. CCC-xiv-1651-CEBU, Rollo, pp. 9-24).

After trial on the merits, the trial court, convinced that
Milagros Camahalan and Teodoro
Carcedo are liable as co?principals in the
killing of Pedro Camahalan, rendered a decision on January 12, 1978, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Milagros Camahalan y Baylosis and Teodoro Carcedo y Carredo, after trial on the merits, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide and Murder, qualified by treachery,
respectively, as defined and penalized under Articles 246 and 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, as co-principals by inducement and direct participation,
respectively, and there being no other aggravating or mitigating circumstance
present or proven, hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA, or life imprisonment, with the accessory penalties imposed
by law, to indemnify jointly and
severally, the heirs of the deceased Pedro Camahalan
in the amount of P12,000.00, plus P8,000.00
in moral and exemplary damages, and to pay the costs of this action
proportionately.

“Both accused shall be credited with the period they had undergone
preventive imprisonment which shall commence from May 22, 1977 in the case of Milagros Camahalan
and May 25, 1977 in the
case of Teodoro Carcedo.” (Rollo, p. 42).

On January 13, 1978,
accused-appellant Teodoro Carcedo,
thru his counsel de oficio, filed his notice
of appeal from the said judgment, while accused-appellant Milagros Camahalan, for and in her own behalf as detention prisoner
personally and without assistance of any counsel, filed her notice of appeal on
January 26, 1978.

In her letter dated February
8, 1980 (Rollo, p. 116),
accused-appellant Milagros Camahalan withdrew her
appeal in this case which was granted by this Court in its resolution dated February 25, 1980 (Rollo, p. 122).

Appellant Teodoro Carcedo
raised the following assignments of errors:

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED:

I

IN CURTAILING OR DENYING APPELLANT’S
CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL RIGHTS TO CONFRONT AND TO CROSS-EXAMINE A WITNESS
AGAINST HIMSELF NAMELY, ACCUSED MILAGROS CAMAHALAN WHO, IN THE COURSE OF HER
OWN DEFENSE, TESTIFIED AND GAVE INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM WHICH WAS
MADE THE PRIMORDIAL BASIS OF HIS CONVICTION.

II

IN APPRECIATING AS EVIDENCE THE ALLEGED
THIRD CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT (EXH. “D”) OF ACCUSED MILAGROS CAMAHALAN WHEN IT
HAD FAILED TO RULE A PRIORI ON APPELLANT’S OBJECTIONS TO ITS
ADMISSIBILITY UPON GROUNDS (1) IT VIOLATED HIS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
TO CONFRONT OR CROSS-EXAMINE HER THEREON AND (2) IT PALPABLY VIOLATED THE ‘RES
INTER ALIOS ACTA’ RULE WHEN THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY ATTRIBUTED TO ACCUSED HAD NOT YET BEEN SHOWN BY
EVIDENCE ALIUNDE.

III

THAT EVEN GRANTING, ARGUENDO, THE TESTIMONY OF ACCUSED MILAGROS CAMAHALAN AND HER
EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION (EXH. “D”) WERE BOTH TO BE APPRECIATED IN EVIDENCE
AGAINST APPELLANT, YET THE SAME HAD SUFFERED FATAL INFIRMITIES, WERE FULL OF
IMPROBABILITIES AND HOPELESS CONTRADICTIONS AS TO BE UNWORTHY OF BEING GIVEN
CREDENCE OR WEIGHT.

IV

IN NOT ACQUITTING APPELLANT FOR THE PAUCITY
OF TESTIMONIAL, DOCUMENTARY OR REAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED AGAINST HIM AND WHICH WERE
INSUFFICIENT IN LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE TO OVERCOME HIS STRONG CONSTITUTIONAL
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.”

The main thrust of this appeal is that appellant was not afforded
the right to confront Milagros Camahalan whose
testimony implicated him in this case and was the primordial basis of his
conviction.

The records show, however, that counsel de oficio
for appellant Teodoro Carcedo
had all the opportunity during the trial to cross-examine Milagros Camahalan but did not. 
He manifested instead that
he would impugn the damaging declarations of co-accused Milagros Camahalan through the testimony of his client and his
corroborating witnesses, when the time comes for the presentation of
appellant’s defense.  (Appellee’s Brief, pp. 20-21; Rollo,
p. 127)

It is, therefore, readily evident that appellant thru counsel
waived his right of confrontation.  The
opportunity of cross-examination having been secured, the function and test of
confrontation has also been accomplished (U.S. v. Anastacio,
6 Phil. 413 [1906]).

No less important is the fact that the trial court did not
entirely rely on the third extrajudicial confession (Exhibit “D”) of Milagros Camahalan as the sole evidence to prove conspiracy of
appellant with his co-accused in the killing of Pedro Camahalan.  The prosecution adduced credible evidence
consisting of the things, acts and declarations testified to and/or presented
in court by its witnesses with respect to the circumstances of previous time
and place which were confirmed substantially by Milagros Camahalan
when she testified as defense witness in her behalf.  Thus, the trial court took into
consideration, separately from said Exhibit “D”, the testimonies of Simplicio Daplas, Alma Licaros, Benita Baylosis, Sgt. Manlunas of Malabuyoc Police
Force and Dr. Danilo R. Cabigon,
Municipal Health Officer of Malabuyoc, Cebu.

Prosecution witness Simplicio Daplas testified that Milagros was at the vicinity of his
house at barrio Montanesa looking for Elisardo Carcedo at 9:00 o’clock in the morning of May 20, 1977.  He pointed to her the place where Elisardo resided, and she proceeded to the place pointed
to.  Prosecution witness Alma Licaros testified that she saw Milagros Camahalan,
Pedro Camahalan and Elisardo
Carcedo together at the store of Inting
Lim in barrio Montanesa at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening of May 21, 1977, which is 50 to 60 meters away from
the beach where the dead body of Pedro Camahalan was
later found.  Benita Baylosis,
adopted mother of Milagros Camahalan, declared that
Milagros went with her husband at 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of May 21,
1977, to go fishing, but she returned alone the next day at around noontime,
telling Benita that Pedro had gone to Santander, Cebu, to borrow money when the truth of the matter was that
Pedro had already been assaulted and killed the night before.  Sgt. Manlunas
testified as to his official ocular inspection of the dead body and the things
he found at the scene of the crime, consisting of buri
bag, red T-shirt, bloody stones, empty bottle and parts thereof, and black
plastic cap.  He saw several injuries on
the top and back of the head, nape and on the throat of the deceased
victim.  He also saw streaks of blood
from the body at the seashore, and bits of left-over food on the beach near the
bridge.  From the post-mortem examination
report of Dr. Danilo R. Cabigon,
Municipal Health Officer of Malabuyoc, Cebu, on his autopsy of the cadaver of the deceased Pedro Camahalan as well as his testimony in court on said report
and his autopsy, it was shown that the deceased victim sustained around fifteen
(15) wounds or injuries all over his body, especially on his head and neck,
five of which were fatal ones, and the cause of the victim’s death was
“hemorrhage, shock, secondary to violent physical injuries (skull)”, thus
showing that said injuries were inflicted by more than one person or assailant.

All the foregoing evidence, testimonial and real as well as the
finding of Sgt. Manlunas from his inspection of the
scene of the crime and the nature and seriousness of the victim’s wounds
corroborate the statements of Milagros Camahalan in
the questioned extrajudicial confession.

More than that, the chain of circumstances found by the trial
court unerringly points to the complicity between the appellant and his
co-accused in the commission of the offense. 
A careful review of the records how that all three
accused were together and acted in concert in the execution of their criminal
design.  They were animated by the
same purpose, that of bringing about the death of the victim and the evidence
show that by their very acts during and after the commission of the crime, they
were acting in concert.

Thus, among other things, in her testimony in court, Milagros Camahalan narrated certain incidents and events before and
during the existence of the criminal conspiracy, which are the basis of the
trial court’s findings that she lured her husband to the beach in barrio Montanesa in the evening of May 22, 1977, that in the
execution thereof, appellant Teodoro Carcedo, in cooperation with his brother Elisardo Carcedo, choked and
stoned the victim Pedro Camahalan to death, while she
stood by watching them and thereafter, she and Elisardo
Carcedo went to the latter’s house where they slept
together for the night while Teodoro Carcedo went separately on his way home.  While a testimony coming from the mouth of a
co-conspirator must be accepted with caution, the court is justified in giving
credit to the same if no part thereof has been shown to be false (People v. Tiongson,
6 SCRA 391[1971]).  In fact, the very
death weapons found at the crime scene consisting of empty Tru-Orange
bottle, two pieces of bloodstained stones, a broken bottle with a black plastic
cap, actual use of which was not only admitted by accused Milagros but can be
deduced from the nature of the injuries inflicted on the victim, confirmed the
conspiracy heretofore shown.

In any event, as co-conspirator, the accused is equally
responsible for the acts of his conspirators (People v. Manlolo
and Garcia, G.R. No. L-40778, January 28, 1989; People v. Jusep, 157 SCRA 248 [1987]; People v. Tamba,
147 SCRA 427 [1987]).

On the other hand, the appellant’s defense is alibi; however,
later on he admitted that he was at
the crime scene but alleges that he did not do anything there which had any
relation with the crime (Rollo, p. 30).  According to Teodoro
Carcedo, on May 21, 1977, at around past 6:00 o’clock
in the evening, he and his cousin Alfredo went to the seashore of Montanesa to catch fish to provide viands for their supper
that night.  While they were fishing, Elisardo called the appellant and asked the latter if they
had already a big catch of shrimps so that they can broil some.  The appellant replied that they had a few and
told Elisardo to get the shrimps from the container. 
After Elisardo got
the shrimps for broiling, appellant and
Alfredo continued fishing and did not join Elisardo’s
group.  About 8:30 o’clock that
same night, appellant and Alfredo stopped fishing as they had then caught a
variety of fish and shrimps and both went back home together to Servanda Carcedo’s house.  They arrived in said place at around 9:30 P.M.
and their catch was immediately cooked.  Servanda and her children ate their late supper.  Afterwards, they drank some tuba and later on
went to sleep together in the same house and never went out of the house until
the following morning (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 10-12).

The trial court found Teodoro’s defense
of alibi untenable besides being weak and apparently bearing earmarks of
fabrication (Rollo, p. 34).

It is settled rule that alibi is a weak defense for it is easy of
fabrication (People v. Ragas, 44 SCRA 152 [1972]; People v. Mori, 55 SCRA 382
[1974]; People v. Dereje, 56 SCRA 554 [1974]; People
v. Zapatero, 58 SCRA 450 [1974]; People v. Perante, Jr., 143 SCRA 56 [1986]; People v. Coronado, 145
SCRA 250 [1986]).  For the defense of
alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused 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.
Benaraba, 129 SCRA 266 [1984]; People v. Esmael, 37 SCRA 601 [1971]; People v. Diaz, 55 SCRA 178
[1974]; People v. Turalba, 55 SCRA 697 [1974]; People
v. Baylon, 57 SCRA 114 [1974]; People v. Cortez, 57
SCRA 308 [1974]; and People v. Coronado, supra; People v. Pineda, 157
SCRA 71 [1988]; People v. Masangkay, 157 SCRA 320
[1988]; People v. Santillan, 157 SCRA 534 [1988];
People v. Escabarte, 158 SCRA 602 [1988]; People v. Aninon, 158 SCRA 701 [1988]).

In the instant case, taking into consideration that the appellant
was then fishing at the seashore of barrio Montanesa
which is only a hailing distance from the scene of the crime, the possibility
of his being physically present at the latter site cannot be seriously doubted.  In addition, he admitted that the other group
arrived while he and Alfredo Carcedo were fishing and
roasting shrimps and he even gave some to the deceased.  In the process, he corroborated and supported
Milagros’ testimony with his own (Rollo, p. 38).

Finally, the record shows that Teodoro
attempted twice to flee from the authorities, a fact indicative of guilt.

Undoubtedly, this case
furnishes another occasion to reiterate the settled doctrine that the appellate
courts will not disturb the factual findings of the trial court especially as
to credibility of witnesses; that
conclusions and findings of fact by the
trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed
unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better
position to examine real evidence, as well
as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying (People v. Adones, 144
SCRA 364 [1986]; People v. Patog, 144 SCRA 429
[1986]; People v. Cruz, Sr., 151 SCRA 609 [1987]; People v. Veloso,
148 SCRA 60 [1987]).

After a careful review of the records, no cogent reason could be
found to disturb the findings and conclusions of the trial court.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is Affirmed with the
modification that the indemnity is raised to P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Gutierrez,
Jr., Feliciano, and Davide,
Jr., JJ., concur.