PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BONIFACIO TIROL AND CIRIACO BALDESCO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Tirol

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Bonifacio Tirol and Ciriaco Baldesco for a single night of extraordinary violence: the killing of seven members of one family and the wounding of two survivors in their own home in Matalam, Cotabato. The trial court convicted both men of seven murders and two frustrated murders and imposed the death penalty for each killing. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it is a clean illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the defenses of alibi and denial against positive identification by survivors, it shows how death certificates are used when the fact of death is not in issue, and it demonstrates the rule that the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability but not the civil liability that may be pursued against his estate.

Procedural History

Fourteen persons were charged before the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, Branch III, with multiple murder and double frustrated murder. Only Bonifacio Tirol and Ciriaco Baldesco were apprehended; the rest remained at large. After the second stage of the preliminary investigation was waived by both accused, the acting provincial fiscal filed the information. After trial, the trial court rendered its decision on March 31, 1969, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of seven murders and two frustrated murders, sentencing each of them to death for each of the seven murders and to an indeterminate prison term for each of the two frustrated murders, and ordering them to indemnify the heirs. Because the penalty imposed was death, the records were elevated automatically to the Supreme Court. On appeal, the accused assigned five errors: the admission of the death certificates, the disregard of their alibi, the denial of a motion for new trial, the failure to establish conspiracy, and the claim that the decision was contrary to law. During the pendency of the appeal, on October 23, 1977, appellant Baldesco died in the New Bilibid Prison Hospital, and the Court resolved to dismiss the case as to his criminal liability, while still resolving the appeal as to him for the purpose of determining the civil liability for which his estate may be liable.

Facts

In the evening of December 4, 1965, Kosain Manibpol was sleeping with his family in their house at Kabalangasan, Matalam, Cotabato, with a petroleum light burning, as was their habit. He was awakened by the barking of their dogs. When he got up to investigate, he saw two men, Beatingco Junior and Julian Casian, who had already come up. They said they wanted to borrow part of his land, and he consented. Suddenly Kulas Bati arrived, flashed his flashlight on Kosain's face, and boxed him. When Kosain fell to the floor, more than ten companions, all armed with bladed weapons and firearms, came and hacked him, his wife, and his seven children.

Kosain's wife Kadidia Kalangtongan and six of his children died. Kosain and his daughter Undang, about six years old, survived although wounded, and fled to the house of a neighbor. They reported to the police and were given medical attention. Kosain testified that he actually saw Ciriaco Baldesco hacking his wife with a bolo, and the harelipped Bonifacio Tirol hacking his eldest daughter. Undang identified Tirol by his harelip and Baldesco by touch on the shoulder, and showed the scar on her back from her own wound. Both accused raised alibi. Baldesco claimed he was home from six in the evening, took supper, listened to the radio until nine, and slept. Tirol claimed he was in Salat, Kabacan, Cotabato, from December 2 to December 7, 1965, looking for work in a logging camp.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting the death certificates issued by a doctor who did not personally examine the victims but relied on a police sketch.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the alibi of both accused.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in denying a new trial based on an alleged affidavit of the complaining witness that he implicated Baldesco for a consideration.
• Whether or not the evidence established conspiracy among the accused.

Applicable Provisions

The information charged the crime of multiple murder with double frustrated murder, expressly invoking the murder provision and the provision on frustrated felony of the Revised Penal Code:

Contrary to Law, especially Articles 248 and 6 of the Revised Penal Code.

These are the provisions under which the killings were qualified as murder and the wounding of the two survivors was treated as frustrated murder.

The Court also referred to the rule on appeals in capital cases, Section 9 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which requires that in all cases in which the death penalty is imposed the records be elevated for review:

Section 9, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court requires that in all cases in which the death penalty is imposed the records are elevated to the Supreme Court for review.

This is the procedural basis for the automatic elevation of the case to the Supreme Court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no error in the admission of the death certificates. The fact of death was not in issue, and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the victims died from stab wounds inflicted by the armed men remained uncontroverted. The death certificates were therefore only corroborative of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the alibi. It held that alibi, which is easy to concoct, must be received with utmost caution, for it is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an accused. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the two survivors, who pointed to both accused as members of the armed group. The Court held that alibi is unavailing once the accused is positively identified by one without motive to charge him falsely with a grave offense. The Court also stressed that for alibi to be acceptable, it must be shown that the place where the accused was alleged to be when the offense was committed is located at such a distance that it is well nigh impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Here, Baldesco's house was only about one kilometer from the victims' house, and Tirol's house was in the same barrio. The trial court's rejection of Tirol's alibi was correct because of the inconsistencies in his evidence about his travel to Salat.

On the third issue, the Court found the assigned error bereft of merit. The trial court rejected the motion for new trial on the ground that it was filed out of time.

On the fourth issue, the Court found that the positive identification of the two accused as having been in the group and as having participated in the concerted attack on the victims was what mattered. The apparent inconsistencies in the testimony of Kosain and Undang as to who among the armed men hacked which victim were insufficient to destroy their credibility, considering that the presence of a number of armed men simultaneously participating in the unlawful aggression could really be confusing.

Doctrine

First, alibi is one of the weakest defenses and must be received with utmost caution. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by witnesses who have no motive to testify falsely. For alibi to be acceptable, the accused must show that the place where he was at the time of the offense is so distant that it was well nigh impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.

Second, death certificates are admissible as part of the testimony of the witnesses and are merely corroborative where the fact of death is not in issue and the cause of death is established by uncontroverted testimony.

Third, minor inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, especially in the confusion of a sudden attack by many armed men, do not destroy their credibility where the positive identification of the accused remains firm.

Fourth, the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability, but the appeal may still be resolved as to him for the purpose of determining the civil liability for which his estate may be liable.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Bonifacio Tirol, dismissed the case as to Ciriaco Baldesco because of his death during the pendency of the appeal, and resolved the appeal as to Baldesco only for the purpose of determining the civil liability of his estate.

Remember This

Memorize the line that alibi is unavailing once the accused is positively identified by one without motive to charge him falsely with a grave offense. Examiners use this case to test the hierarchy of defenses, the treatment of death certificates as corroborative evidence, and the rule that the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal but not civil liability.