PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.MAURICIO TORRES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

In the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 51,
Tayug, Pangasinan, accused-appellant Mauricio Torres was charged in Criminal
Case No. T-1105 with the crime of Murder with the Use of Unlicensed Firearm, in
an information dated 10 January 1991, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 10th day of Aug. 1990, in the evening at
Bgy. Cadiz, Municipality of Umingan, Province of Pangasinan, Republic of the
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, including John Doe whose identity have (sic) not yet been
established, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with intent to
kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, armed with an unlicensed
firearm (Carbine), did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
shoot one LORENZO ANTONIO, inflicting the latter an injury, to wit:

– Gunshot wound, through and through, point of
entry, left scapular region, fracturing the left scapula, perforating the left
lobe of the lungs, going upward to the neck, point of exit, left side of the
neck,

which caused the death of LORENZO ANTONIO
as a consequence, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said LORENZO
ANTONIO.

CONTRARY to Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1866.”^[1]

On 27 June 1991,
accused-appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. After trial, the trial court rendered a
decision* dated 9 March 1992, the dispositive part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds the accused
MAURICIO TORRES guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined
and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua together with all the accessory
penalties provided for by law and to pay the heirs of the deceased the
following amounts: a) P50,000.00 as
indemnity; b) P11,500.00 for the funeral services; c) P20,000.00 for the
expenses incurred for the eight-day wake; d) P900.00 for the tomb and e) to pay
the costs.

The bailbond posted by the accused for his provisional liberty is
hereby cancelled pursuant to
Sec. 3 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court and his immediate confinement
is hereby ordered as per Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 2-92.

SO ORDERED.”^[2]

The antecedent facts
which gave rise to the incident involved in this case, are as follows:

On 10 August 1990, at around 6:30 in the evening, Lorenzo Antonio
and Domingo Salazar were walking on the dike (pilapil) in the field of Dadong
Antonio, situated at Barangay Cadiz, Umingan, Pangasinan. They were intending to go home to their
respective families after hiding for two (2) days in Nagkuralan, Cuyapo, Nueva
Ecija, a barangay roughly two (2) kilometers away from Barangay Cadiz.^[3]
The two (Antonio and Salazar) were allegedly, involved in stabbing one Lando
Torres on 8 August 1990 in Cadiz. Lando
Torres happened to be an uncle of the accused.^[4]
Heeding their parents’ advice, Antonio and Salazar sought refuge with their
relatives in Nagkuralan until a messenger from Cadiz in the person of one Ramon
Godova went to Nagkuralan to personally inform them that the case had been
settled by their respective families so that they could go back to Cadiz. Although they still harbored some doubts as
to the veracity of the message, they told the messenger that they would go home
in the afternoon of the same day.^[5]

While traversing the said dike, Lorenzo Antonio, who was walking
ahead of Domingo Salazar, suddenly stopped as he noticed two (2) persons on the
right side of the dike lying down on their side facing each other, and who
appeared to be lifeless. Lorenzo
Antonio immediately recognized one of them and exclaimed to Domingo Salazar
that such person was “Melio” referring to the accused Mauricio Torres
who happens to be a second cousin of Domingo Salazar, their father being
cousins. Domingo Salazar, upon
recognizing that one of two (2) persons lying down was indeed Mauricio Torres,
immediately told Antonio that these persons might already be dead and that they
should run as some people might suspect them of having a hand in their killing
if they were to be seen in the vicinity of the crime scene.

Before they could run, Domingo Salazar saw that Mauricio Torres
suddenly moved from his previous position holding a gun. When he saw the latter kneel down and point
the gun at Lorenzo Antonio,^[6]
Domingo Salazar immediately jumped back and began to run eastward. Lorenzo Antonio immediately followed suit
and ran westward. While they were
running, Domingo Salazar heard a shot. Lorenzo Antonio, then about two (2) meters away, told him that he (Lorenzo)
was hit. Domingo continued running
eastward to Nagkuralan, Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija.^[7] He
chose to flee back to Nagkuralan as he had recognized the accused who is from
Cadiz, Umingan, Pangasinan. Lorenzo
Antonio was left behind because he fell on the edge of the fence of the ranch
of Dadong Antonio.^[8]

Upon reaching Nagkuralan, Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, Domingo Salazar
proceeded to the house of Councilman
Simplicio Dominguez and informed him of what had happened. Councilman Dominguez then summoned his
fellow councilmen and some barangay tanods and proceeded to the place of the
incident. They first went to the field
of Dadong Antonio where he (Domingo) and Lorenzo Antonio saw the accused and
another person lying down facing each other, and while there, they found and
retrieved an empty shell lying around one (1) foot away.^[9]
From this spot, they proceeded to the place where Lorenzo was last seen by
Domingo. After walking about one
hundred (100) meters, they found the body of Lorenzo Antonio lying down
prostrate facing the ground at the edge of the fence of the ranch.^[10]

Councilman Dominguez and his men brought the lifeless body of
Lorenzo Antonio to his residence in Cadiz, Umingan, Pangasinan and reported the
incident to the barangay officials of Cadiz.

The following day, Lorenzo’s body was examined by Dr. Alex
Trinidad, the Rural Health Physician of Umingan, Pangasinan in the residence of
the former and determined the cause of the victim’s death as internal hemorrage
due to gunshot wound.

Dr. Trinidad further testified that the bullet entered the
victim’s left scapular region exiting on the left side of the neck; the point
of entry being much smaller than the point of exit, indicating a strong
probability that the victim was shot at a very close range. Corollarily, prescin­ding from the
trajectory of the bullet, he concluded that the position of the gunman was much
lower than that of the victim. Moreover, allegedly judging from the
irregularity of the wound, he opined that the bullet could only have been fired
from a high caliber gun.^[11]

Police Corporal Jose Aimerol, a member of the Umingan Police
station, was next to testify. According
to him, Domingo Salazar came to his office on 13 August 1990 to execute a sworn
statement regarding the incident. On
the same occasion, Salazar also submitted to him an empty shell similar to that
used in a carbine caliber 30 R-5 firearm. On cross-examination, he however admitted that he had no knowledge where
Domingo Salazar picked up the aforementioned empty shell, and that no firearm
was ever submitted to his office.^[12]

Florencio Antonio, the father of the victim, testified on the
civil aspect of the case. He claimed he
had spent P11,500.00 for his son’s funeral service; P20,000.00 for the eight
(8) day wake and P900.00 for the cost of the tomb.^[13]

Accused-appellant anchors his defense mainly on alibi and
doubtful identity as can be gleaned from the following assignment of errors in
this appeal, viz:

That the court a quo
erred:

1. IN HOLDING THAT THE LONE WITNESS, DOMINGO
SALAZAR, CATEGORICALLY POINTED OUT TO THE ACCUSED AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE
CRIME.

2. IN HOLDING THAT
MANY PEOPLE ATTENDED THE BIBLE STUDY, YET NOT EVEN ONE WHO IS NOT RELATED TO
THE ACCUSED WAS PRESENTED TO PROVE HIS ALIBI.

3. FINALLY, IN HOLDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED.

Accused-appellant did not testify in his behalf but presented
three (3) witnesses to establish his alibi.

Celestino Fernandez, accused’s father-in-law, and a minister of
the Church of Christ stationed at Cadiz, Umingan, Pangasinan, testified that on
10 August 1990, from 5:30 in the afternoon to 9:30 in the evening, he presided
over a bible study seminar conducted in his residence. The session was attended by more than thirty
(30) participants, including the accused who arrived at their house together
with his family at about 5:30 of that same afternoon as he was then the person
in charge of the lighting and other things needed in the seminar. He maintained that from the time the seminar
began up to the time it ended, nobody left the enclosed room where the meeting
was held. He had a list of participants^[14]
which was prepared by his daughter as the people arrived. On cross-examination, he admitted that the
list was only prepared on 10 October 1991, a full one (1) year and two (2)
months from 10 August 1990 and that he could not remember if he ever gave
instructions to his daughter to write the names of the participants on 10
August 1990.^[15]

Armando Fernandez, the barangay captain of Cadiz, Umingan,
Pangasinan testified that at around 5:30 in the afternoon of 10 August 1990,
accused-appellant came to his house to borrow an adjustable wrench, after which
he saw the accused proceed towards the adjacent rice mill of his (Armando’s)
father. Accused-appellant did not return
the wrench on the same day and it was only on the following day that he saw him
again.^[16]
On cross-examination, he admitted that accused-appellant is his brother-in-law;
and that at about 10:30 p.m. on 10 August 1990, he received a report that a
person was killed in the ranch of Dadong Antonio. Immediately he reported the matter to the
local police. However, he never went to
the crime scene and did not make any attempt to obtain any lead as to the
suspect in the case. It was only
in the afternoon of 12 August 1990 that he was invited to the house of Sitong
Antonio together with two (2) others, and there he personally heard Domingo
Salazar reveal in front of his companions, Jose Antonio and Antonio Credo as
well as Manuel Santos and Florencio Antonio that it was Mauricio Torres who
shot Sitong (Lorenzo) Antonio.^[17]

Last to testify was
Councilman Dominguez, who told the court a quo that he was the
first person to whom Domingo Salazar reported the shooting incident. When he asked Salazar whether he recognized
the assailant, Salazar only answered that “one was tall and the other was
short.”^[18] Curiously, he did not inquire further to
clarify Salazar’s hazy description of the suspects.

From the two (2) sets of facts, as respectively set forth by the
prosecution and the defense, the Court concludes that this appeal is devoid of
merit.

First, on the issue of doubtful identity, the defense posits the
shallow reasoning that Domingo Salazar, the lone eyewitness to the shooting,
did not immediately reveal the identity of the malefactors to Councilman
Dominguez. Instead, all he said at that
time was that “one was tall and the other was short”; and that the
interregnum of two (2) days was long enough for Domingo Salazar to concoct the
story that would implicate accused-appellant as the author of the crime. The trial court, which concededly was in the
best position to determine the credibility of witnesses, based on their
appearance and deportment while on the witness stand, sustained the testimony
of Domingo Salazar, the only eyewitness in the shooting of Lorenzo Antonio.

Accused-appellant questions why the eyewitness Domingo Salazar
did not immediately divulge accused-appellant’s name to Dominguez. Salazar’s proffered excuse is not
uncommon. It was fear. The Court has consistently taken judicial
notice of the natural reticence of most people to get involved in a criminal
case. They are usually afraid to reap
reprisals from the accused and/or his family and relatives.^[19]

Furthermore, it is well-settled that
the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to
obtain a conviction, even in the absence of corroboration.^[20]
It shall be given full credit in the absence of any ill motive or long-harbored
grudge that can be ascribed by the accused to such witness, which induced him
to falsely testify against the accused.

In the case at bench, the records reveal that accused-appellant
is even related to witness Salazar, they being second degree cousins. This fact reinforces the circumstance that
he (Salazar) knew the accused-appellant well,
being close relatives and residents of the same barangay.

It would then be preposterous to think that Salazar would
implicate a second cousin for no apparent reason at all, except to tell the
truth and as his conscience dictates.

We come now to the integrity and credibility of
accused-appellant’s alibi.

Alibi as a defense has an inverse relation to positive
identification. As evidence, it is
regarded as being the weakest and unreliable of all defenses especially in the
light of clear and precise evidence of positive identifica­tion of the accused
by the prosecution eyewitness against whom no motive to falsely testify against
the accused can be established. It can
only prosper by indubitably proving that the accused was somewhere else when
the crime was committed, and an unassailable demonstration that he could not
have been physically present at the locus of the crime or its immediate
vicinity at the time of its commission. In spatial terms – physical impossibility of being in two (2) places at
the same time.

The trial court did not reject accused-appellant’s alibi solely
on the ground that appellant failed to call
to the witness stand any disinterested person who could prove that
accused-appellant was attending a bible
study session at the time of the incident in question. Domingo Salazar positively identified
accused-appellant as the person who fired the shot that killed Lorenzo
Antonio. Second, no evidence of ill
motive on the part of Domingo Salazar to falsely implicate a relative was ever established. Third, the place where appellant purportedly
attended the bible study was not too distant, being two (2) kilometers away or
thirty (30) minutes by foot from the scene of the crime.

Lastly, as the Solicitor General aptly observed, the witnesses
presented by appellant to corroborate his alibi were far from credible, two (2)
of the three (3) witnesses being closely related to him. As the lower court sharply pointed out –

“The discussion on the defenses put up by the accused shows
that it has not dent a bit the evidence of the prosecution. Furthermore, the Court finds the witness for
the defense unrelia­ble, biased and inconclusive. The witnesses for the accused are: Celestino Fernandez, a minister of the Church of Christ is the
father-in-law of the accused. Armando
Fernandez, Brgy. Captain of Cadiz, Umingan, Pangasinan is son of Celestino
Fernandez and brother-in-law of the accused. Only witness Simplicio Dominguez is not related to the accused although
as a councilman himself of a neighboring barangay it could be said that his
testimony tends to protect a relative of Brgy. Captain Fernandez.

“With the foregoing, the testimonies of Celestino Fernandez
and Armando Fernandez corro­borating the accused’s defense of alibi is not
acceptable to the Court. There are
allegedly many people who attended the bible study, yet not even one who is not
related to the accused was presented to prove his alibi. The Fernandezes’ testimonies are not only
biased for it is a natural desire to exculpate the accused from criminal
liability, it is also inconclusive. Alibi is at least a weak defense and easy to fabricate especially
between parents and children, relative and even those not so related. For alibi to be credible must count with a
strong corroboration.”^[21]

The fact that there were more than thirty (30) persons who
attended the bible study in Fernandez’ residence on 10 August 1990 and not one
(1) of them testified to corroborate accused-appellant’s alibi further eroded
Celestino Fernandez’ credibility as in effect he was the only one presented to
substantiate the said defense. The
defense instead chose another relative, Armando Fernandez who merely testified
that he saw the accused around 5:30 p.m. on 10 August 1990 when he borrowed an
adjustable wrench from him, then went to the ricemill and that he next saw him
the following morning of 11 August 1990.

If the defense claims that as early as 5:30 p.m. of 10 August
1990, appellant was already at the place of the bible study busy fixing chairs
and did not thereafter leave the place, then how could he be at Armando
Fernandez’ house borrowing an adjustable wrench at the same time?

It is to be noted that accused-appellant was never pre­sented to
explain these inconsistent defense submissions.

In People vs. Solis,^[22] this
Court held that the defense of alibi is weak if it is established mainly by the
accused himself and his relatives and not by credible persons. The same principle equally obtains in this
case.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Tayug, Pangasinan convicting accused-appellant Mauricio Torres of the crime of
Murder is hereby AFFIRMED in toto with costs against the
appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Regalado, and Puno, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 6.

* Penned by Judge Hugo B. Sansano,
Jr.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 23-24.

^[3]
TSN, July 25, 1991, p.14

^[4]
Ibid, p. 27

^[5]
Ibid, at p. 25

^[6]
Ibid, p. 7

^[7]
Ibid, P. 8

^[8]
Rollo, p. 17

^[9]
TSN, January 3, 1992, p. 7.

^[10]
TSN, July 25, 1991, p. 21.

^[11]
TSN, August 8, 1991, pp. 8-12

^[12]
TSN, August 8, 1991, pp. 16-17

^[13]
TSN, September 5, 1991, pp. 3-5

^[14]
Exhibit 1, Original Record, p. 131

^[15]
TSN, January 21, 1992, pp. 3-10

^[16]
TSN, January 30, 1992, p. 4.

^[17]
TSN, January 30, 1992, pp. 6-7.

^[18]
TSN, January 31, 1992, pp. 4-5.

^[19]
People vs. Fuentes, G.R. No. 104667, January 17, 1994.

^[20]
People vs. Sampaga, G.R. 91339, 202 SCRA 157 (1991).

^[21]
Rollo, pp. 133-134.

^[22]
195 SCRA 465, citing People vs. Berrinquel, 192 SCRA 561