THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AMIRIL ASMAWIL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Amiril Asmawil was
convicted by the Court of First Instance of Sulu for
robbery with homicide under Paragraph 1, Article 294, Revised Penal Code.

As found by the trial court, the facts are: At about seven o’clock of
Saturday evening, December 29, 1956, Amiril Asmawil went looking for Sanadi
fiakon in the house of the latter’s first wife, Pullong, located in Tipo-tipo,
municipal district of Talipao, province of Sulu. Sanadi’s daughter, Anti, who
was then with Halid Majid in
the balcony of the house, informed accused that her father was in the
neighboring house of Anang, his second wife.
Thereupon, Asmawil went to Anang’s house.

Sanadi Bakon and Asmawil,
subsequently came down from Anang’s house and
proceeded towards Pullong’s house. Upon reaching the
gate, which was more than three fathoms from the balcony, Sanadi called Halid Majid to open it. Halid Majid got a key and descended the stairs to open the gate,
but, before he could do so, Asmawil hacked Bakon with a barong, hitting him across the breast. The
victim fell backward. Asmawil then picked up the .45
caliber pistol which Bagon held in his hand and ran
away with it Anti and Halid Majid saw and recognized the accused by the light of a lamp
in the balcony.

Haiid Majid hurriedly
took a barong from the house and, together with Kamlon, Sabdani, Abdulsail and Sawadi, pursued
Amiril Asmawil. They did not
overtake him Anti rushed to her severely wounded father, who died before he
could be brought inside the house.

Anang and some companions reported the incident to
Mayor Usman Asgal and the
Philippine Constabulary in Talipao. At 6:20 a.m., December 30, 1956, Philippine Constabulary soldiers
headed by Lt; Angal P. Garcia arrived in the scene of
the crime. They interrogated Halid Majid and Anang who informed them
that it was Amiril Asmawil
who killed Sanadi Bakon and
robbed him of his pistol. Lt. Garcia sent to the Provincial Commander of Sulu the following radiographic report:

“SPOT REPORT PD ROB WITH HOMICIDE AT ABT ONE NINE ZERO ZERO HRS TWO NINE DEC FIVE SIX TIPTIPON GC 979246 TALIPAO PD
AT ABT ZERO SIX ZERO FIVE HRS THREE ZERO DEC FIVE SIX CMA EX MAYOR USMAN ASGAL
RPTD THAT COUNCILOR SANADI BAKKON WAS KILLED YESTERDAY NIGHT NEAR HIS HOUSE AT
TLPTIPON PD ALFA INVEST PATROL UNDER LT ANGEL PAPA GARCIA WAS DISPATCHED ZERO
SIX TWO ZERO HRS THREE ZERO DEC FIVE SIX PD INTERVIEW WITH WITNESSES REVEALED
THAT AT ABT ONE NINE ZERO ZERO HRS SEVEN ARMED PERSONS
SURROUNDED HOUSE OF COUNCILOR SANADI BAKKON PD ONE IDENTIFIED AS AMERIL ASMAWIL
BEARING BLADED WEAPON ONLY INQUIRED WHERE COME SANADI BAKKON WAS AND WERE TOLD
HE WAS IN HIS OTHER HOUSE ABT FIFTY YARDS AWAY PD AMERIL ASMAWIL WENT TO NEXT
HOUSE WHERE THEY ATE WITH SANADI AFTER WHICH THEY WENT DOWN PD ABT TEN YRDS AWAY
FROM S AN A DPS HOUSE COUNCILOR SANADI WAS HACKED BY AMERIL ASMAWIL AT THE UPPER
BREAST RESULTING TO HIS IMMEDIATE DEATH PD HIS PISTOL CAL FORTY-FIVE LICENSED
WAS TAKEN PD MOFIVE PERSONAL GRUDGES PD COMPLAINT VS AMERIL ASMAWIL ET ALS BEING
READIED PD WRITTEN RPT FOLS PD”

Sanadi Bakon was buried
on December 30, 1956. On
the basis of affidavits executed on December 31 by Halid MaIid and Anang before Lt. Garcia, a criminal complaint was in the
Justice of the Peace Court of Talipao against Amiril Asmawil. The accused
pleaded not guilty and waived his right to the second stage of the preliminary
investigation. After the records of the case were transmitted to the Court of
First Instance of Sulu, an
information was filed therein against Asmawil
for robbery with homicide.

After trial, or on July 7,
1961, the court a quo rendered the following
judgment:

“WHEREFORE, the accused, AMIRIL ASMAWIL, is hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE, defined and penalized in
Paragraph 1, Article 294, Revised Penal Code. He should
be, as he is hereby, sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with
all the accessory penalties of the law; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased,
Councilor Sanadi Bakon, In
the sum of P6,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.”

The accused has appealed to this Court.

Appellant’s defense is alibi which he tried to prove with his own testimony
that at about the time the crime was committed, he was at his house in Sitio Lambayong, about four
kilometers from the scene of the crime; that he never left home that evening;
that he came to know, from his mother, of the death of Sanadi Bakon on December 30; and
that he attended the funeral of Sanadi Bakon.

As a rule, alibi is a weak defense since it is easy to concoct. Courts view
it with caution and accept it only if proved by positive, clear and satisfactory
evidence. (U.S. v. Olais, 36 Phil.
828; People v. Pili, 51 Phil. 965; People v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 265, People v. Bautista, L-17772, Oct. 31
1962.) Alibi cannot prevail over the clear, explicit and positive
identification of the accused by credible witnesses. (People
vs. Palomos, 49 Phil. 601; People vs. Rafanan, L-13289, Sept. 29, 1962.) Accordingly, the
uncorroborated testimony of appellant in support of his alibi cannot be given
credence in the face of his clear and positive identification by prosecution
witnesses Anti and Halid Majid. Prosecution witnesses also stated that they did not
see appellant in the funeral of Sanadi Bakon and that if he were there he could have been killed by
the relatives of the deceased.

Appellant would impugn the credibility of Anti and Halid Majid, stating that being
blood relatives of the deceased they were interested in the success of the
prosecution. Suffice it to state in this regard that this Court has ruled that
where no improper motive—such as personal grudge against the accused—has been
shown, relationship to the victim does not render the clear and positive
testimony of witnesses less worthy of full faith and credit. (People vs. Valera, L-15662, August 30,
1962.)

This Court, moreover, will not interfere with the conclusion of the trial
court concerning the credibility of witnesses, in the absence of a showing that
some fact or circumstance of weight and influence in the record was overlooked
or misapplied, or its significance misunderstood by the court (U.S. v. Ambrosio, 17 Phil. 295; U.S. v. Estrada, 24 Phil. 401).

Anang, testifying for the defense, repudiated her
affidavit of December 31,
1956. Appellant emphatically relies upon this repudiation to press
for the reversal of the judgment. However, such disavowal took place after she
married appellant and after she attempted to bribe Halid Majid to recant. She stated
in her affidavit that she saw appellant cut down her husband and that the
latter, while cradled in her arms and dying, told her that it was appellant who
hacked him. It is not strange, therefore, that having subsequently married
appellant, she should choose to defend him and repudiate her affidavit. Such a
repudiation, however, cannot overcome the testimonies of Anti and Halid Majid that they saw
appellant commit the offense in question.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs
against appellant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ.,
concur.