PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FLAVIANO MATILDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Essential in this day and age is man’s need for money; however, some
idolatrously lust for it. Reason, most
of the times, vanishes at the sight of a few pieces of gold and silver. In the instant case, accused-appellant,
Flaviano Matildo, is charged with the crime of Murder for killing his friend
for a meager sum of One Peso and Fifty Centavos (P1.50). Killed instantly, the victim, Vicente
Baradillo sustained a stab wound causing massive intra abdominal visceral
bleeding.^[1]
Accused-appellant anchors his defense on alibi.

The facts of the case are as follows:

It was in the afternoon of May 17, 1984, at around 4:00 when
accused-appellant and the victim, Vicente Baradillo had an altercation inside a
cockpit at San Isidro, Gigaquit, Surigao del Norte. The altercation arose from a game of “Lucky 9” or
“Bakarat.” The problem started on how the amount of P1.50 would be
divided between the victim and herein accused-appellant.

One hour later,
Vicente Baradillo and his daughter Evangeline, together with accused-appellant
Matildo rode on a passenger jeepney going home. Accused-appellant was seated in front of Baradillo while
Evangeline was seated at the rear portion of the jeepney. Evangeline noticed that while on the
jeepney, accused-appellant gave dagger looks at Vicente.

Upon reaching home, at around 6:00 p.m., Vicente and Evangeline
ate their supper. It was at this point
when accused-appellant arrived and shouted “canaug – -” at Vicente
which meant in English, “Vicente, come down, let’s kill each other.”^[2]
Vicente disregarded the challenge and instead slept.

However, at around 9:00 p.m. that same evening, Evangeline and
Vicente woke up because of the sounds created by their two (2) carabaos
fighting outside their house. Vicente
went downstairs to find out what was going on. Evangeline, who was about three (3) arms length from her father,
followed the latter. Vicente, who was
about five (5) meters away from their house, was treacherously stabbed by
accused-appellant with a long, sharp-pointed bolo. Evangeline witnessed what happened and could even vividly
remember that accused-appellant had to clean his blood-stained bolo with banana
leaves right at the feet of his bloodied father.^[3]

Thereafter, Evangeline ran to their neighbors and asked for
help. Diomedes Bohol and Rolando
Pepino, two of their neighbors, responded to the call of Evangeline. Upon reaching the scene of the crime,
Diomedes Bohol and Rolando Pepino saw
accused-appellant standing at the feet of Vicente still armed with his bolo.^[4]

Consequently, accused-appellant was arrested and charged under
the following information:

“That on the 17th day of May, 1984, at or about nine (9:00)
o’clock in the evening, in Sitio Bungtod, Barangay San Isidro of the
municipality of Gigaquit, Province of Surigao del Norte, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused with all freedom, intelligence,
criminal intent, intent to kill, without unlawful aggression and provocation
coming from victim (Vicente Baradillo), specially securing and taking advantage
of the cover of the night, with evident premeditation did then and there
voluntarily, unlawfully and feloniously attack and stab with the use of a
sharp-pointed bolo one VICENTE BARADILLO inflicting upon the victim (Vicente
Baradillo) ‘stab wound at the epigastrium longitudinal 6.0 cm. with dual prong
at the inferior ends approximately 7.0 cm. deep injuring the liver, stomach,
pancreas and spleen ‘which wound directly cause (sic) the death of Vicente
Baradillo consequently inflicting upon the heirs actual, moral and exemplary
damages in the sum of P100,000.00.

“This killing is qualified to Murder by the circumstances of
treachery and evident premeditation.

“Contrary to law.”^[5]

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged but was
subsequently convicted after trial on the merits of the crime of Murder, in a
decision rendered by the trial court, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused FLAVIANO MATILDO, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER defined and penalized under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and metes the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua. To indemnify the heirs of
Vicente Baradillo the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS and TEN THOUSAND
(P10,000.00) PESOS actual and
moral damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; to suffer
the accessory penalty provided for by law and to pay the costs (sic).”^[6]

Hence, this appeal.

Accused-appellant raises the following as errors of the court a quo.

I

IN FINDING FROM THE LONE TESTIMONY OF
EVANGELINE BARADILLO, A 13-YEAR OLD DAUGHTER OF DECEASED VICENTE BARADILLO,
THAT IT WAS APPELLANT FLAVIANO MATILDO WHO KILLED HER FATHER.

II

IN FINDING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF EVANGELINE
BARADILLO IS CORROBORATED BY THE TESTIMONIES OF ROLANDO PEPINO AND DIOMEDES
BOHOL, BESIDES BEING TAINTED BY SUPPRESSION OF HER AFFIDAVIT TAKEN AS PART OF
THE RES GESTAE.

III

IN FINDING THAT IT WAS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
WHO STABBED VICENTE BARADILLO WHEN THERE WAS NO EYEWITNESS TO THE ACTUAL
STABBING, ONLY THE PRESENCE OF APPELLANT AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, TOGETHER
WITH ANTECEDENT CIRCUMSTANCES, LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS THE APPELLANT
WHO STABBED THE DECEASED.

IV

IN CONVICTING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT OF
THE CRIME OF MURDER AND SENTENCING HIM TO RECLUSION PERPETUA AND TO INDEMNIFY
THE HEIRS OF VICENTE BARADILLO WITH (sic) SUM OF FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00), TO PAY ACTUAL AND MORAL DAMAGES OF TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00)
PESOS, WITHOUT SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT IN CASE OF INSOLVENCY, AND TO SUFFER THE
ACCESSORY PENALTIES PROVIDED FOR BY LAW AND TO PAY THE COSTS.“^[7]

A careful examination of the records and evidence before us
brings to fore the weakness of the defense of alibi as to deserve scant
consideration.

All assigned errors of the court a quo shall be discussed jointly as they are interrelated
with each other.

Well settled is the rule that the defense of alibi cannot prevail
over the positive identification of the accused by the witnesses for the
prosecution and to establish it, accused
must show that he was at some other place for such period of time that it was
impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed at
the time of its commission.^[8]

Alibi is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by
an accused, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also
because of its easy fabrication without much opportunity at checking or
rebutting it.^[9]

In the case at bar, the testimony of Evangeline deserves full
faith and credit. At the tender age of
thirteen years, it is highly improbable for Evangeline to concoct, contrive,
orchestrate and hatch a story regarding the death of her father and lay the
blame on a man who is her father’s friend, if she were not certain that indeed
it was accused-appellant who stabbed and killed her father.

We quote the testimony of Evangeline during cross-examination:

“Q.  And
you said you followed him?

A.   Yes, I followed.

Q.  At this point, when he
reached at this distance, how far have you gone from the edge of your house?

A.   To that table. (Witness indicating a distance half a
distance reached by her father).

Q.  Why did your father stop
that place?

A.   He was stabbed, sir.

Q.  And you claimed (sic)
before this Honorable Court that it was the accused who stabbed your
father. Is it not?

A.   Yes, sir. It was Flaviano Matildo who stabbed my
father.

Q.  And you were picturing
(sic) this Honorable Court that you saw the killing of your father because you
were following at (sic) your father?

A.   Yes, sir.

Q.  And you were not at the
porch of your house when you saw the incident?

A.   No. I was not at the porch.

Q.  At that time when your
father was stabbed by the accused, Flaviano Matildo, could you tell us how
Flaviano Matildo stab (sic) your father?

A.   Yes, sir.

Q.  How?

A.   Like this, sir. (Witness demonstrating with the use of her
right hand thrusting it on a semi-horizontal direction).”^[10]

The defense contends that the affidavit of prosecution witness
Evangeline Baradillo which was executed on May 18, 1984 before the Gigaquit
Police was not presented during trial and hence, there was a willful suppression
of evidence.

We do not agree.

There is no need to present Evangeline Baradillo’s affidavit
because she has already testified in open court regarding the circumstances of
the crime. Well settled is the rule
that an affidavit is not considered the best evidence if affiant is available
as a witness.^[11]

Moreover, inconsistencies in the affidavit and testimony on the
witness stand of the prosecution witnesses, Diomedes Bohol, do not necessarily
discredit him. In fact, testimonial
evidence carries more weight than affidavits.

On this point, the case of
People vs. Gabatin,^[12] had this to say, to wit:

” x x if there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and
the testimony, the latter is to be
given more weight since affidavits, being taken ex­-parte, are almost incomplete and inaccurate. Thus in People vs. Loveria, the Court held:

‘x x
x The appellant further claims that Richard Bales did not implicate him
in his affidavit but pointed to him on the witness stand. Affidavits, taken ex-parte, are
generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court
(People vs. Pacola, G.R. No. L-26647, August 14, 1974, 58 SCRA 370). The Court has consistently held that an
affidavit taken ex-parte, is almost always incomplete and inaccurate,
sometimes from partial suggestions, sometimes from want of suggestions and
inquiries, without the aid of which the witness maybe unable to recall the
connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the 13 first
suggestion of his memory and for his accurate recollection of all that belongs
to the subject (People vs. Tan, 89 Phil. 337 (1951); People vs. Gonzales, G.R.
No. L­-40727, Sept. 11, 1980, 99 SCRA 697; People vs. Avanzado, Jr., G.R. No.
73116, Feb. 29, 1988, 158 SCRA 427).’”

Be that as it may, accused-appellant admitted that prosecution
witness Diomedes Bohol is his very close friend.^[13]
Hence, Bohol could not have been actuated by an improper motive in testifying
against him. When there is no evidence
to indicate that a witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper
motives, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is
entitled to full faith and credit.^[14]

Indisputably, we have two opposing versions of what actually
happened that led to the death of Vicente Baradillo, that of the prosecution
and that of the defense. In situations
like this the matter of assigning values to the testimony of witnesses is best
performed by the trial courts because, unlike appellate courts, they can weigh
such testimony in the light of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the
witnesses at the trial.^[15] The exception is when the trial court
has overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might
affect the result^[16]
which we do not find in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision
appealed herefrom, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Exhibit “A”.

^[2]
T.S.N., June 25, 1985, p. 9.

^[3]
Id. at p. 10, 13.

^[4]
T.S.N., May 20, 1986, p. 6.

^[5]
Records, pp. 1-2.

^[6]
Records, p. 885.

^[7]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 7-8.

^[8]
Id.

^[9]
People vs. Devaras, G.R. No. 48009, 205 SCRA 676 (1992).

^[10]
T.S.N., May 20, 1986, pp. 29-30.

^[11]
Ayco vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 84770, 195 SCRA 328 (1991).

^[12]
G.R. No. 84730, 203 SCRA 225 (1991).

^[13]
T.S.N., November 10, 1989, p. 7.

^[14]
People vs. Ruedas, G.R. No. 83372, 194 SCRA 553 (1991).

^[15]
People vs. Catalino, No. L-25403, 22 SCRA 1091, 1098 (1968).

^[16]
People vs. Cabiling, No. L-38091, 74 SCRA 285 (1976).