PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOEMI BALACIO AND BONIFACIO BISAYA @ “PICOY”, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 8, La Trinidad, Benguet in Criminal Case No. 745, finding appellants
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing them “to suffer
the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased, Emeterio Pascua in the amounts of P90,000.00 for loss of support,
P100,000.00 for moral damages, and P30,000.00 for his death, and to pay
costs” (Decision, p. 29; Rollo, p. 44).

The information filed in Criminal Case No. 745 charged appellants
of murder committed, as follows:

“That on or about the 31st day of December, 1978, at Asin,
Municipality of Sablan, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually aiding one another with deliberate intent to kill
and with evident premeditation, by the use of superior strength and treachery,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, strike
and wound one EMETERIO N. PASCUA, by then and there inflicting multiple hacking
wounds to the neck, face, hands and other parts of the body of the said
deceased which directly caused his
death shortly thereafter.”

“That in the commission of the crime, the aggravating circumstance
of nighttime is present, the same being sought by the accused in order to
insure its commission thereof” (Rollo, p. 17).

The evidence established that at dusk of December 31, 1978,
Francisco Iday went to the house of Emeterio Pascua at Asin, Municipality of
Sablan, Province of Benguet, upon the latter’s invitation to celebrate the New
Year. They, then, decided to go to the
Rimando Hotel to continue their celebration, because Pascua’s wife disliked
drinking in their house. Before leaving
the house, Pascua asked Iday to purchase liquor at a nearby store and told him
that they would meet at the hotel. At
the store, Iday saw appellants, who asked him if he came from the house of
Pascua. Not getting an answer from
Iday, the two left. After buying the
liquor, Iday proceeded to his house to inform his wife that he was going to the
Rimando Hotel to join Pascua. Upon
reaching his house, he saw the accused enter his gate, prompting him to ask
them what they were doing there. The
two answered that they were just on their way home. On his way to the hotel, Iday saw appellant Bisaya getting some
bolos hidden under some shrubs. Appellants slung the bolos, which were sheathed in scabbards, on their
shoulders. After appellants left, Iday
returned to his house to tell his wife about the appellants, who were acting
suspiciously. His wife asked him to
fetch water before going to the hotel. On his way to fetch water, he saw Pascua walking towards a store. Appellants crossed to the other side of the
creek and waited by the road side for Pascua. When the latter came out of the store, appellants suddenly started
hacking him with their bolos. Then they
fled.

Dr. Felicisimo C. del Rosario, who performed a post-mortem
examination on the cadaver of Pascua, reported finding two hack wounds which
severed the trachea, esophagus and blood vessels of the right nape of the neck,
two hack wounds on the jaw, and a hack wound on the right wrist. The cause of death was “cardio-respiratory
arrest due to shock and hemorrhages”.

According to Dr. Del Rosario, the injuries could have been
inflicted with a sharp-bladed instrument by one or more persons.

Appellants presented a two-pronged defense. They put up the defense of alibi and at the
same time they questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s sole eyewitness,
Francisco Iday.

Appellant Balacio claimed that in the afternoon of December 31, 1978, he went to the
Asin Hot Spring and stayed there to celebrate the New Year, with appellant
Bisaya, Elmos Lingbanan and Wilson Ducay. He got inebrieted and slept until early morning of the next day. Appellant Bisaya also testified that he was
with his co-accused in the Asin Hot Spring the whole night of December 31, 1978
(Appellants’ Brief, pp. 42-49; Rollo, p. 55).

The defense of alibi will not prosper. The Asin Hot Springs Center, where appellants allegedly spent the
night of December 31, 1978, was in the same municipality as the scene of the
crime. It was, therefore, not
physically impossible for appellants to take time out of their drinking spree,
commit the crime and return to the center to continue drinking (People v.
Alcantara, 33 SCRA 812, [1970]).

Fatal to the defense of alibi is the positive identification of
appellants as the perpetrator of
the crime (People v. Valiente, 213 SCRA 499 [1992]).

Appellants admitted that the narration of Iday “may appear
convincing as is”. However, they
claimed that a “searching scrutiny” of the testimony will expose the
“badges of unreliability” therein (Appellants’ Brief, p. 14; Rollo,
p. 55).

Appellants argued that from the vantage point of Iday about 120
feet from the crime scene, he could not have seen the hacking of Pascua
inasmuch as the trees obstructed the moonlight and light from the lamp post
(Appellants’ Brief, pp. 19-24; Rollo, p. 55). The trial court, after the ocular inspection of the crime scene, noted:

“x x x the trees referred to, although they may obstruct
moonlight at night, would not obstruct, and could not have obstructed during
that night of the crime, the illuminations of the street lamp on the mercury
electric lamp post at the end of the road shown at the background, right upper
corner of the picture marked Exhibit “K” (p. 267, Record). An imaginary straight line drawn from the
top of the electric post 120 feet away and down to the top of the head of the
person facing the camera in the picture and standing on the dried human blood
stains (Exh. “K-1”) would not in any way be obstructed by any part of
the star apple trees. Similarly, the
illumination of the small electric bulb on top of the main door of the Asin
hotel at the other end of the road, shown in the other picture, Exhibit
“L” (ibid.), at the background upper left corner. Likewise an imaginary straight line drawn
from the top of the head of a person with an average height standing on the
same blood stains (Exh. “L-1”), to the said small bulb not in anyway
be obstructed by any part of the apple trees. Added to these illuminations was that coming from the bonfire that was
starting to burn at that end of the road where the mercury electric lamp post
stood (Exh. “K”)” (Decision, pp. 22-23; Rollo, pp. 37-38).

Appellants also questioned as unnatural, Iday’s shadowing their
movements from the time he saw them at the store where he bought liquor up to
the time of the stabbing of Pascua ( Appellants’ Brief, pp. 24-31; Rollo, p.
55). Any person in Iday’s place would
be suspicious of appellants after seeing them enter the gate leading to his
house and retrieving bolos from under the shrubbery. It was easy for anyone to conclude that appellants had bad
intentions from their actuations.

This is particularly true with respect to Iday who knew of the
animosity between Pascua and appellants (Decision, p. 26; Rollo, p. 41). Pascua earlier mentioned to him, that if
appellants did “not get him” first, he would be the one “to get” them
(TSN, p. 25, January 25, 1984, pp. 5-6)

The delay in Iday’s revealing the names of appellants to the
police, (Appellants‘ Brief, pp.
14-16; Rollo, p. 55) was explained to the satisfaction of the trial court. Aside from the genuine fear of Iday for his
own life and those of his family at the hands of appellants, he testified that
strangers had been coming to his place for several days after the incident.

We defer to the appraisal of the trial court of the credibility
of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense. Being supported by the evidence, the findings of the trial court
will not be disturbed (Caubang v. People, 210 SCRA 377 [1992]).

The trial court awarded civil indemnity for the death of the
victim in the amount of P30,000.00. This Court has increased the civil indemnity to be awarded for the death
of the victim to P50,000.00 (People v. Sison, 189 SCRA 700 [1990]).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment appealed from
is AFFIRMED with the modification that the civil indemnity shall be increased
to P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Griño-Aquino, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.