PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO ESTERA ALIAS RUBEN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

A case certified to
this Court for review by the Court of Appeals ^[1] by
reason of the penalty of reclusion
perpetua which it seeks to impose on the accused, Roberto Estera
alias Ruben, for the crime of Murder, thereby modifying the indeterminate
sentence meted out by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catbalogan, Samar, Branch
27.^[2]

It   was in Barangay Rama,
Catbalogan, Samar, where Uldarico Bulan (the victim) and his family lived. They occupied a house on the western side of
a barangay street running from north to south. Adjacent to the Bulan house, on the northern side, was the house of
Margarito Avila. The Avila house was
only a meter away from the Bulan
house. To the north of the Avila house,
about 1-1/2 meters away, was the house owned by the spouses Francisco and
Josenia Sidon. The latter was Uldarico Bulan’s daughter.

On 13 January 1984, accused-appellant and his family took a boat
from Catbalogan City to Barangay Rama, Catbalogan, Samar. Accused-appellant, who was at that time a
member of the CHDF, assigned as escort and part of the security force
protecting Mayor Raul Muñoz, was going to Barangay Rama, to serve as the Mayor’s “advance
party.” His wife, Pacita Avila, and children went along because the former
was a native of the place, which was celebrating its barangay fiesta the
following day. As part of the Mayor’s
security contingent, Estera was issued a baby Armalite, an M16 rifle, caliber
5.56 mm., with Serial No. R.P. 127200, and sixty (60) rounds of ammunition, by
the local Military Police Brigade.

At around 5 o’clock in the afternoon, accused-appellant, together
with his wife and childlren, arrived at their destination. They immediately went to the house of
Margarita Avila, Pacita’s father.

The prosecution witnesses narrated the circumstances surrounding
the commission of the crime as follows: Upon arrival at Barangay Rama, the accused-appellant, together with some
others, had a drinking spree. At around
7 o’clock in the evening of the same date, a gunshot was heard. It came from the direction of the Avila
house. The victim, Uldarico Bulan, who
was then inside his house, heard the gunshot and shouted towards the Avila
house, admonishing them not to fire any more shots, as someone (referring to
his daughter Josenia, living in the house adjacent to the Avila house) had just
given birth four (4) days earlier. Nobody in the Avila house responded, and no gunshot was fired
again. However, an hour later, another
gunshot was heard, this time near the Bulan’s “banggerahan.” The
“banggerahan” was made of bamboo, with slats in between, making it
possible to see outdoors, beyond the house itself. Immediately after hearing the gunshot, Helen Bulan, a daughter of
Uldarico who was inside the house with the latter, peered outside and saw the accused-appellant,
carrying an M16 rifle, in assault position. Meanwhile, she heard her father, who was about to approach the drinking
jar in the “banggerahan” shout: “You son of a bitch, Ruben, why
did you shoot me when I have no fault” (TSN, 10 June 1985, p. 11). Then, Helen saw accused-appellant fire a
volley of shots once more. When she
looked at her father, he was already lying on the floor. Helen and her mother Gliceria lifted the
fallen Uldarico, and he told them: “You stand for it, because it was Ruben
Estera who shot me” (TSN, 10 June 1984, p. 14). Five minutes later, Uldarico died.

During all the commotion, Josenia Sidon was inside her
house. After the rapid succession of
gunshots, Josenia immediately opened the door of her house, and she saw
accused-appellant, wearing a green, military-type “poncho” raincoat,
coming from her father’s house, holding a rifle in a port-arm position, running
northbound on the barangay street. When
the accused-appellant reached the Barangay Reading Center, he again fired his
M16 rifle twice.

Meanwhile, Helen and her mother, with the help of some neighbors,
prepared the body of the deceased for the wake in their house. There were several people who came. At around 10 o’clock in the evening,
accused-appellant, still carrying his firearm, went inside the Bulan house, and
uttered the following remarks: “You might say I was the one who shot him as I am the only person who had a
firearm” (TSN, 10 June 1985, p. 15). He then went out of the house, to drink with the men folk, who had, by
then, gathered for the wake.

The defense witnesses presented their own version thus: When the boat going to barangay Rama was
about to reach its destination, accused-appellant fired two shots into the air
to test if the rifle he borrowed
was functioning properly. When they arrived at the Avila house,
accused-appellant was already dizzy, as he had been drinking rhum during the
trip. He rested on a mat which his wife
had prepared for him. He placed the
rifle on the floor beside him, and the bullets under his pillow. Accused-appellant fell asleep, only to be
awakened by his wife at around 8 o’clock in the evening. The latter had heard gunshots coming from
the direction of the Bulan house. Upon
awakening, accused­-appellant heard a single gunshot, which he estimated to
have come from the Reading Center. He
commanded everyone in the house to lie flat on the kitchen floor. Then, he grabbed the rifle and loaded it
with ammunition. They did not move
until 45 minutes had passed. Then,
seeing that there were people outside, accused-appellant went out of the house,
and sat on the rung of its staircase. As he sat there, he noticed that there was silence in the Bulan
household. Just then, he saw Francisco
Sidon, Josenia’s husband, walking on the barangay street, homeward-bound. Accused-appellant asked Sidon what had
happened, but the latter did not know. Accused-appellant looked towards the Bulan house, and he saw that many
people had gathered around it. Out of
curiosity, he looked inside the house through the main door and saw Uldarico
Bulan dead. Accused-appellant gathered
his family, and took them to the house of his sister-in-law, as his wife was
very scared of all the shooting that had transpired. Then he went back to the Bulan house, and seeing the body of the
deceased still on the floor, he asked some people to lift it and place it on
the table. After this, he and some
friends stayed on to keep vigil. After
some time, he left the Bulan house. That night, he slept at
the house of his sister-in-law, together with his family. He woke up at 6 o’clock the following morning
(15 January 1984), and helped the police who were investigating the crime
committed the day before.

At 10 o’clock in the morning of 15 January 1984, Mayor Muñoz
arrived at Barangay Rama. Accused-appellant, together with some others, escorted him around the
barangay. At about 3 o’clock in the
afternoon, the Mayor and his party (including accused-appellant) left for
Bagoñgon. According to
accused-appellant, the entire party of the Mayor spent the night in Bagongon,
and on 16 January 1984, left for Mombon, where they stayed for two hours. After Mombon, they proceeded to Cagutsan,
where they stayed for two hours also. Then they all returned to Catbalogan City. On this same date, accused-appellant returned the firearm he had
borrowed, to the Supply Officer of the Military Police Brigade. He also returned the 58 rounds of ammunition
left, after having fired two rounds to test the rifle.

Defense witness, Lucresio Lomuardo, testified that at 8 o’clock
in the evening of 13 January 1984, he was at the Reading Center of the
barangay. He saw a man wearing a
military raincoat with a hood covering his head, pass by. After a while, he heard a volley of gunfire,
and then saw the man in the raincoat pass by again. This time, the hood was off the man’s head. He fired the weapon once more, near the
Reading Center. On direct examination
said witness testified that he saw the man’s face, and that the man was not the
accused-appellant. However, upon cross
examination, the witness testified that since it was very dark that evening,
and there was no light outside the Reading Center, he could not make out the
appearance of the person wearing the raincoat, (TSN, 20 January 1987, p. 58).

The records show that Gliceria Bulan and her children took the
body of the deceased to Catbalogan City for autopsy on 14 January 1984. The autopsy revealed that the deceased
sustained nine gunshot wounds, three of which were fatal. The cause of death was described as
“cardiorespiratory arrest from multiple gunshot wounds”. From an examination of the entry and exit
wounds, the examining physician concluded that eight (8) of the wounds were
inflicted from behind the victim, while one (1) was sustained by the victim
while the assailant was either in front or behind him.

The crime was reported to the police, and that same day, several
policemen were dispatched to Barangay Rama, to conduct the necessary
investigations. Six empty shells of an
M16 rifle were found at the scene
of the crime: four in the “banggerahan” and two outside the house, below
the “banggerahan.” The two empty shells found outside the house were
recovered by the accused-appellant himself, who was present at the crime scene during the investigations
conducted by the police. The six empty
shells (or specimen shells) were then turned over to the Tacloban City crime
laboratory for the purpose of determining whether they were all fired from one
and the same firearm. Six (6) bullets
were also test-fired from the same armalite for purposes of laboratory
comparison of the test shells with the specimen shells.

The ballistic examination revealed that the empty (specimen)
shells recovered from the crime scene, showed the same individual
characteristics as the test shells fired from the armalite rifle issued to
accused-appellant and that the empty shells were all fired from the same baby
Armalite of accused-appellant.

In his Brief filed with the Court of Appeals, accused-appellant
faults the Trial Court with disregarding his defense of alibi and finding him
guilty of Murder beyond reasonable doubt.

As the Appellate Court has pronounced, the evidence on hand
disproves the foregoing assertions.

Accused-appellant’s defense of alibi was properly rejected. Aside from the accepted tenet that alibi is
one of the weakest of defenses, easily susceptible of concoction, and is
invariably viewed with suspicion, it may be considered only when established by
positive, clear and satisfactory evidence (People of the Philippines v. Marayo,
L-4800, 9 May 1953). Not only is this
evidence wanting. Prosecution
eyewitnesses Helen Bulan and Josenia Sidon testified that the accused-appellant
was present at the scene of the
crime. And more than that, Helen
positively identified him to be the gunman who shot the deceased.

The utterances of the deceased immediately prior to his death
also deserve admission and appreciation. His wife and daughter, seeing him lying on the floor with several
gunshot wounds, lifted him, and as they did so, he uttered: “You stand for
it because it was Ruben Esters who shot me” (TSN, 10 June 1985, p.
14). Five minutes after he said these
words, he expired. This declaration has
all the vestiges of a dying declaration and even if not, there can be no
question about its admissibility as part of the res gestae (People
of the Philippines v. Baguio, G. R. No. 76585, 30 April 1991, 196 SCRA 459).

As this Court has articulated,
the defense of alibi is certainly unavailing where there is affirmative evidence of the
presence of the accused at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission, if not his positive identification as the perpetrator of the
offense, as well as where there is an ante mortem statement of
the victim received in evidence either as a dying declaration or as part of the
res gestae (People of the Philippines v. Baguio, supra).

Other factors besides point to accused-appellant’s penal
accountability. He was the only
individual with a heavy firearm on the date the killing was perpetrated. What is more telling is that the ballistic
examination revealed that all empty shells recovered at the crime site had been
fired from the same M16 armalite rifle which accused-appellant had in his
possession. The same weapon was
returned only on 16 January 1984, or three (3) days after the incident. As a matter of fact, accused-appellant admitted
to the bereaved family that he was the only one with a firearm, when he went to
the Bulan residence at 10 o’clock in the evening of 13 January 1984, or barely
two (2) hours after the killing, to keep vigil over the deceased when he said:
“You might say I was the one who shot him as I am the only person who had
a firearm.” He, too, had a motive for wanting to do away with the
deceased. The latter had the temerity
to shout towards the direction of the Avila house where the first shot came
from, to desist from firing. And again,
upon hearing the gun report from near their “banggerahan,” the victim
uttered the following statement: “You son of a bitch Ruben, why did you
shoot me when I have no fault.” This statement obviously added fuel to
accused-appellant’s anger.

The only exhibit offered by the defense was a xerox copy of
entries of the police blotter of the Catbalogan City Police dated 13 January
1984, particularly entry No. 80, which was a report made to the police by Helen
Bulan, to the effect that her father had been shot by “unidentified
men.” While there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties on the part of policemen when they enter data in the police
blotter, that is disputable and can be overcome by the existence of facts from
which the Courts can determine
the truth of the matters in issue. In
the case at bar, prosecution witness Helen Bulan herself positively identified
accused-appellant as the assailant and from the circumstances surrounding the
criminal act we have no reason to doubt her credibility. So categorical was her statement to this
effect.

“Q.  Now,
after your father uttered the
remarks which had already been placed on record, what transpired next?

“A.   I
heard several shots.

“Q.  Where
did you hear these several shots?

“A.   From
our wash stand.

“Q.  Did
you come to know who was the person who fired
the successive shots?

“A.   Yes, sir.

“Q.  Why
who was that person who fired the several shots?

“A.   Ruben
Estera.

“Q.  Why
do you say that it was Ruben Estera who fired the
successive shots?

“A.   Because
I saw him.” (TSN, 10 June 1985, pp. 11-15; emphasis
ours).

Moreover, as she also testified, she was not with her mother when
the latter was investigated by the police.

“Q. When your mother was being investigated by
the police oficer in the barracks, you did not volunteer
to the police to give the information that you actually saw Ruben
Estera killed (sic) your father, is that right?

“A.   Because I was not with my mother
in coming to Catbalogan, I was left behind in the house.” (TSN, March 20, 1986, pp.
20-22; underlining supplied).

Besides, there   was actually no way of verifying the accuracy
of Helen Bulan’s alleged disclosure to the police since the defense decided to
“dispense with the testimony of the station commander.”

The Court concludes, therefore, that accused-appellant’s guilt
has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The crime is Murder undoubtedly qualified
as it is by treachery. The
modification by the Court of Appeals of the penalty from the indeterminate
sentence imposed by the Trial Court of a minimum of twelve (12) years and one
(1) day of reclusion temporal, to a maximum of eighteen (18)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of recluson temporal, to reclusion
perpetua, is likewise in order. The generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling is off-set by the
mitigating circumstance of intoxication so that the penalty imposable would be
the medium period of the penalty fixed by law or reclusion perpetua.^[3]

WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED and the
accused-appellant, Roberto Estera alias Ruben, is hereby sentenced to reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of
Uldarico Bulan in the amount of P50,000.00.

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla,
Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Seventh Division composed of Justices Serafin E. Camilon, Chairman, Celso L.
Magsino, Member, and Artemon D. Luna, Ponente.

^[2]
Judge Sinforiano A. Monsanto, presiding.

^[3]
Pursuant to the majority opinion in People v. Muñoz, G. R. Nos. 38969-70, February 9,
1989, 170 SCRA 107, 120-125, with the ponente herein
dissenting.