PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELMO CATUA, PETER CATUA AND RUBEN CATUA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

This case was certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals
pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Court because it
imposed two (2) penalties of reclusion perpetua on each of the
three (3) defendants-appellants.

The appellants were charged with the crime of Double Murder under
Article 248, in relation to Article 48, of the Revised Penal Code, in an
information alleging –

“That on or about February 21, 1986, in the municipality of
Kapalong, Province of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with
John Doe and Peter Doe, who are still at large, with treachery and evident
premeditation, with intent to kill, armed with rifles and 12 gauge shotguns,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
shoot Fernando Bautista and Marina Agunza Bautista, thereby inflicting upon
them wounds which caused their death, and further causing actual, moral and
compensatory damages to the heirs of the
victim.” (p. 5, Rollo.)

After trial, the court a quo rendered a decision on September 4, 1989, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the guilt of the accused
having (sic) proved beyond reasonable doubt, [the court] hereby sentence (sic)
the accused Elmo Catua, Peter Catua and Ruben Catua, after applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, to an imprisonment of FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT
(8) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as minimum, to TWENTY (20)
YEARS of reclusion temporal [as] maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased couple for P60,000.00.” (p. 8, Decision, p. 15, Rollo; Words in
bracket supplied.)

In their appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 08932)
the appellants argued that the trial court erred (1) in finding them guilty of
the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to positively identify
them as the perpetrators of the crime and (2) in finding them guilty of the
crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

The facts of the case, as established by the evidence for the
prosecution and summarized by the Solicitor General in the Brief for the People
are as follows:

“In the morning of February 21, 1986, the spouses Fernando
Bautista and Marina Bautista, together with their 14-year old son Tirso and
12-year old daughter Catalina, were planting corn in their farm in Calyawa,
Kapalong, Davao. At around 10:00 o’clock,
five persons, among them the appellants, appeared at the farm and shot the
spouses Fernando and Marina Bautista with firearms. Tirso and Catalina Bautista who were twenty (20) meters away from
the appellants and their companions saw the shooting and, in fear, were holding
each other’s hands. After the shots
were fired, Fernando and Marina fell to the ground groaning, and appellants and
their companions ran away. Tirso and
his sister Catalina, after stopping by their fallen mother, likewise ran away
from the scene (TSN, T. Bautista, October 24, 1982, pp. 7-14, 19, and 22).

“Felix Remitar was sowing corn in a lot located in Baco-baco,
Calyawa, Kapalong, Davao near the farm of the Bautista’s when, around 9 o’clock
in his estimate, he heard rapid firing of guns. Remitar’s lot was located in the upper or elevated portion of the
area, and when he looked down below, he saw the assailants firing at Fernando
and Marina Bautista who then fell to the ground, Remitar recognized the
appellants among the assailants because the Catua brothers were his friends
having known them even before the shooting of the Bautistas (TSN, F. Remitar,
November 19, 1986, pp. 6-12).

“After leaving the scene of the shooting, Tirso ran to the
house of Jose Tunga, a member of the ICHDF, about a kilometer away from the
scene, shouting as he approached, that his father was shot. Tunga immediately responded by calling and
gathering the members of the ICHDF. Gaudioso Sobreno and Juanito Descarter, and two other ICHDF members
joined Tunga and they went to the place of the incident. When they reached the place, they found
Fernando and Marina Bautista motionless and dead. Fernando suffered injuries on his breast where his liver came
out, and Marina was wounded in the stomach. Corn grains for sowing scattered around the corpses of the
Bautistas. Tunga and his companions
tried to trail the killers, whom Tirso identified as the Catua brothers, for
two kilometers but they were no longer around. They returned and reported the matter to the Kapalong police (T.
Bautista, p. 15; TSN, J. Tunga, April 21, 1980, pp. 10-11).

“Felix Remitar, after witnessing the shooting of the spouses
Bautista, went back to the barrio where he met Tirso Bautista. He reported the incident to the ICHDF
(Remitar, p. 17). The death of spouses
Fernando Bautista and Marina Bautista is established by the Certificates of
Death (Exhibits ‘B’ and ‘C’)
showing that the victims died on February 21, 1986.” (Appellee’s Brief,
pp. 4-7.)

The appellants denied their participation in the crime charged
and set up the defense of alibi as follows:

Accused Ruben Catua testified that on February 21, 1986, he was in
Asuncion, Davao, as he stayed in the house of an acquaintance by the name of
Federico Casumanan. He was hospitalized
and was treated for Malaria at the Kapalong District Hospital. From December 1985 to March of 1986, he was
already in Asuncion. He had resided in
barrio Callawa when he was still small. He was born in that place. At
the age of seven (7), he left the place and transferred to Gupitan, Kapalong.

Federico Casumanan corroborated Ruben’s alibi.

Salvador Belave testified that at around 10:00 o’clock in the
morning of February 21, 1986, he was with Elmo Catua and a certain Able
Ganongan cutting grasses in his farm in Suwaon, Kapalong, Davao. Before February 21, 1986, he was at the same
farm, working with the same persons. He
knew Callawa. Callawa is very far from
Suwaon. If one would walk, it would
take about one day’s walk to reach Callawa from Suwaon because he would climb
mountains. Elmo Catua and Able Ganongan
worked with him in his farm for one (1) week from February 20 to February
24. His house is about fifteen (15)
meters from the house of Elmo Catua.

Susan Catua testified that Peter Catua is her husband and they live
in Monte Dujali, Kapalong, Davao. At
around 10:00 o’clock in the morning of February 21, 1986, she was in the house
together with her husband and their four (4) children. Her husband was supposed to plant on that
day, but he was not able to go because one of their children was sick. They brought their child to Tagum for a
doctor and they came home late in the afternoon.

Monte Dujali, Kapalong is
very far from Callawa. The fare by bus
to Callawa is P20.00 (TSN, July 19, 1989, pp. 16-22).

Roberto Ansero testified that on February 21, 1986, he was working
on the farm of Peter Catua at Mandalingan. He was requested by Peter Catua to do the planting because his son Peter
Catua, Jr., was sick and he would bring his son to a doctor. He was in the company of Julito Makna and
Eleno Bustamante. His house is only 50
meters away from the house of Peter Catua.

Ansero is a resident of Mandalingan,
Monte Dujali where he has stayed for more than six (6) years. He has known Peter Catua for a long time
(TSN, August 9, 1990, pp. 29-34).

The twin issues to be resolved in this case are whether or not
the appellants’ guilt of the crime of double murder had been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, and whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery had been
properly established.

Both the trial court and the appellate court rejected the
appellants’ alibi which is concededly a weak defense that cannot prevail over
the positive testimony of truthful witnesses. The reason is that an alibi is easy to fabricate (People vs. Badilla, 48
Phil. 718; People vs. De Asis, 61 Phil. 384). When the defendants are identified by witnesses for the prosecution by
clear, explicit and positive testimony, their alibi will not be credited (People vs. Medina, 58
Phil. 330).

The identity of the appellants was established by Tirso Bautista,
the 14-year old son of the deceased couple, who was 20 meters from the
assailants and three (3) meters from his parents when they were shot by the
Catua brothers. This witness had known
the assailants since he was ten (10) years old.

Jose Tunga
confirmed that immediately after the shooting. Tirso ran up to him and reported that it was the Catua brothers who killed his parents. (pp. 5-6, 11, tsn, April 21, 1988.)

Another corroborating witness, Felix Remitar, who was working on
his farm adjacent to that of the Bautistas, testified that when he heard rapid
firing, he looked down below, because his lot is located on an elevation. He saw five (5) persons firing at the
spouses Fernando Bautista and Marina Bautista (pp. 6-12, tsn, November 19,
1986). He recognized the Catua brothers
because they were his friends (pp. 12-13, tsn, Nov. 19, 1986).

This Court finds no reason to disagree with the findings of the
trial court on the credibility of the witnesses, to which great weight and a
high degree of respect were accorded by the appellate court.

For the defense of alibi to be given credence, it must not only
appear that the accused were at some other place, but also that it was
physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime when it was
committed (People vs. Virgilio Pasco y Santos, 181 SCRA 235; People vs. Pielago,
140 SCRA 419).

The appellants alleged
that when the crime was committed: Ruben Catua was at Asuncion, Davao; Peter Catua was at Monte Dujali,
Kapalong, Davao, but later went to Tagum, Davao; and Elmo Catua was at Suwaon,
Kapalong, Davao. The trial court found,
however, that:

“x x x from Callawa, Suwaon, Kapalong to Asuncion, Davao in
spite of the distance by few kilometers away the same could be reached by
jeep. Some PUJ are operating these
routes from Tagum vice versa. The
accessibility is not impossible nor impaired. These points – Callawa, Monte Dujali, Asuncion and Tagum are covered
with PUJ jeeps routes and other vehicles.” (p. 280, Records.)

Appellant Ruben Catua submitted a medical certificate to prove
that he was ill with malaria on the day of the shooting. However, the medical certificate (Exh. 1)
showed that he was “examined/treated/confined in this hospital for malaria
on December 23-25, 1986,” i.e., eleven (11) months after the commission of
the crime on February 21, 1986. Moreover, Dr. Elena Isidra Osorio, who signed the medical certificate,
was never presented as a witness at the trial.

In this connection, the following findings of the Court of Appeals
on the presence of treachery and conspiracy in the commission of the crime, are
relevant:

“All told, we are convinced that the guilt of the appellants
for the murderous death of the two victims has been established beyond moral
certainty of doubt. Although the court
below made no disquisition in its decision of the circumstance which qualified
the killing to murder, a perusal of the facts of the case will readily reveal
that treachery attended the killing. While the aforementioned circumstance may not be simply deduced from
presumption as it is necessary that the existence of this qualifying
circumstance be duly proven as the crime itself (People vs. Ardisa, 55 SCRA 245), the rule does not preclude
proof of its attendance by circumstantial evidence (People vs. Maceda, G.R. No. 91106, May 27,
1991). By either means of proof,
however, said circumstance is amply demonstrable in the case before us. Here, appellants together with two (2) other
unidentified assailants with the use of rifles and shotguns, without warning,
immediately fired upon the unarmed victims giving the latter no time for
preparation, resistance or escape. Consequently, following a long line of cases (People vs. Ompad, 26 SCRA
750; People vs. Pedro, 16 SCRA 57; People vs. Ablan, 1 SCRA 931; People vs.
Capitana, 49 Phil. 475), there can be no other conclusion than that appellants
are guilty of the two (2) murders of Fernando Bautista and Marina Bautista.

“That there was conspiracy among the appellants cannot be
doubted. It is well-settled in this
jurisdiction that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but can be
inferred from the acts of the accused (People vs. Alitao, G.R. No. 74736,
February 18, 1991). The appellants’
actuations immediately prior to, during, and right after the shooting incident
unmistakably reveal a concerted action indicative of a preconceived plan to
assassinate the victims. x x x. Conspiracy having been established, the appellants,
as co-conspirators, are all guilty in equal degree on the principle that
the act of one is the act of all.” (People vs. De Guzman, 162 SCRA 145).

The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code).

As there are no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the
prescribed penalty should be imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion
perpetua.

The award of P60,000 by way of civil indemnity for the death of
the two victims should be increased to P100,000 or P50,000 for each of them,
conformably with the latest jurisprudence on the matter (People vs. Sazon, G.R.
No. 75814, September 24, 1990; People vs. Tezarra, G.R. No. 85531, December 10,
1990; People vs. Peralta, G.R. No. 67702, January 18, 1991).

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the appellants, Elmo Catua,
Peter Catua and Ruben Catua, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-conspirators
in the murder of Fernando Bautista and Marina Agunza Bautista and hereby
sentences each of them to suffer two (2) penalties of reclusion perpetua
and to solidarily indemnify the legal heirs of each of the victims in the sum
of P50,000, or the total sum of P100,000 for both victims, plus costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Cruz, and
Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., on leave.