PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JESUS JIMENEZ, JULIAN JIMENEZ AND GERMAN JIMENEZ, ACCUSED, JULIAN JIMENEZ, APPELLANT.

Accused Jesus Jimenez, German Jimenez, and Julian Jimenez were
charged with murder in an Information reading as follows:

That on or about the 14th day of September, 1983, at around 2:00
o’clock in the morning, more or less, in Barangay Lanas, Municipality of Naga,
Province of Cebu, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping each other, with deliberate intent
and intent to kill, with
treachery and known premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and strike pieces of stones therewith Eustaquo
Bacarro, in the different parts of the body, and as a result of which, said
Eustaquio Bacarro died instantly, and the cause of death is, “Cardio
Respiratory Arrest Secondary to Intracranial Hemorrhage Severe. With Skull Fracture Traumatic.”

All contrary to law, and
with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia, and the generic aggravating
circumstance of known premeditation and night time.

(p. 7, Rollo.)

As accused Julian Jimenez had not then yet been apprehended,
trial proceeded only against Jesus Jimenez and German Jimenez who were both
found guilty as charged in a decision rendered on November 25, 1985 by the
trial court, sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Both Jesus and German accepted the verdict
and did not appeal.

Subsequently, on March
12, 1990, Julian Jimenez was arrested and a separate trial was held
against him. On September 4, 1992, the
trial court found him guilty in a decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing premises, the Court finds the
accused Julian Jimenez, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Murder as charged, and
sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and indemnify the
heirs of Eustaquio Bacarro the sum of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of solvency and to pay one-third (1/3) of the
costs.

(p. 33, Rollo.)

Interposing the instant appeal, accused-appellant would justify
reversal upon the following alleged errors:

I.           The
trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant based on the uncorroborated,
biased and highly doubtful or improbable testimony of prosecution witness, Mrs.
Valeriana Rivera;

II.        The trial court erred in not giving probative value to the
testimonies of accused Julian Jimenez and its witnesses Jolito Reyes, Felix Jimenez and Engr. Alberto Ceniza;

III.      The trial court erred in finding accused Julian Jimenez guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

(p. 1, Appellant’s Brief.)

The findings of fact of the trial court are supported by the evidentiary
record, for which reason, said findings are hereby adopted to wit:

That on the 14th day of September, 1983, at early dawn at 2:00
a.m., Valeriana Rivera, together with Heracleo Arabis and his wife Clarita,
were walking on the road between Barangay Lanas, Naga, Cebu and Baranqay
Cantabaco, Toledo City on their way home. They had just come from the fiesta celebration of Lanas, Naga, Cebu in
the house of Quirino Abatayo. After
about 1/2 kilometer distance from Abatayo’s house they heard a shout for
help. They approached the place from
whence they heard the shout for help and saw the deceased Eustaquio Bacarro a
few meters from them, kneeling before the accused Jesus Jimenez. Bacarro was pleading for mercy but Jesus
Jimenez struck Bacarro with a piece of stone, saying – “We will kill
you” hitting Bacarro on his face. Then German Jimenez took his turn and struck Bacarro with another piece
of stone, hitting him on the head. The
accused Julian Jimenez also approached and struck Bacarro with still another
piece of stone, hitting him, at least twice on his face until Jesus Jimenez
told him to stop as – “he is already dead”. German Jimenez and Julian Jimenez were stripped bare from the
waist up while Jesus Jimenez was fully clothed. After seeing Bacarro motionless on the ground, the three
Jimenezes ran away.

(p. 86,
Rollo.)

Accused-appellant impugns the testimony of prosecution witness
Valeriana Rivera as replete with inconsistencies and contradictions. He points out that Valeriana Rivera’s
testimony on cross-examination that there were bushes from where she was when
she saw accused-appellant hit the victim is inconsistent with her direct
testimony that the area was a kaingin or clear area. A careful reading of the testimony of Valeriana Rivera does not
uphold the contention of accused-appellant. The testimony of Valeriana Rivera that there were bushes and cogon grass
refers to the place from where she witnessed the killing of the victim,
Eustaquio Bacarro. On the other hand,
her declaration that the area was a kaingin or clear area describes the site
where the victim was killed. Therefore,
it can readily be seen that there exists no contradiction or discrepancy in her
declaration.

Valeriana Rivera’s
testimony on direct examination that accused-appellant delivered the first blow
against the victim is apparently inconsistent with her testimony on
cross-examination that accused-appellant was the last one to strike the
victim. This inconsistency in her
testimony is minor and unimportant. Whether accused-appellant struck the first blow or the last blow is of
little significance. The essential
thrust of her testimony is that accused-appellant was one of the assailants of
the victim, and her testimony is positive and categorical on this point and must be given full evidentiary
weight. At any rate, inconsistencies or
contradiction on minor matters do not impair the credibility of a witness
(People vs. Sabellano, 198 SCRA 196 [1991]).

Accused-appellant further
contends that the testimony of Valeriana Rivera that the scene of the crime was
illuminated by an electric bulb from a nearby school was refuted by
defense witness Alberto Ceniza, Jr., head of the Transmission and Distribution
Department of the Visayan Electric Company (VECO), who testified that Barangay
Lanas was energized by VECO only on June 23, 1989. Again an earnest examination of the record accords no support to
the contention of accused-appellant. On
cross-examination, defense witness Ceniza admitted that he did not know whether
CEBECO, a cooperative distribution body whose franchise area includes Toledo
City, had energized Barangay Lanas, situated between Naga and Toledo City,
prior to 1989. Furthermore, he admitted
that he did not know whether the school house near the scene of the crime was already
energized in September, 1983.

Moreover, the identification of accused-appellant by Valeriana
Rivera cannot be faulted for the simple reason that she is familiar with
accused-appellant, related as he is to her husband. From the time Valeriana got married in 1958, accused-appellant
was their neighbor until 1972 when she left Lanas, Naga and moved to Cantabaco,
Toledo City. Nonetheless, she still
frequently visited her relatives in Lanas, Naga where she usually saw
accused-appellant. Too, accused-appellant
often went to Cantabago where she used to see him.

Further, accused-appellant maintains that the testimony of
Valeriana lacks corroboration and should, thus, be considered unworthy of
credence. This contention is devoid of
merit. The testimony of a lone
prosecution witness, as long as the same is credible and positive, is
sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt (People
vs. Francisco, 213 SCRA 746). Not a
shadow of evidence appears on record to blacken Valeriana Rivera’s credibility.

The defense of alibi set up by accused-appellant that he was out
at sea fishing is unavailing in the face of his positive identification by
Valeriana as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses that an accused may
interpose, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also
because of the ease with which
it can be fabricated (People vs. Devaras, 205 SCRA 676 [1992]; People
vs. Martinado, 214 SCRA 712 [1992]; People vs. Calope and Torres,
G.R. No. 97284, January 21, 1994), and it cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution witness (People vs. Catubig,
205 SCRA 643 [1992]; People vs. Rendoque, 205 SCRA 783 [1992]).

In the final analysis the issues raised by accused-appellant
concern credibility of the witnesses. Time and again we have upheld the rule that findings of fact of the
trial court should not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court has ignored
or overlooked certain facts or circumstances of weight and significance which,
if considered, would alter the result of the case (People vs. Arenas,
198 SCRA 172 [1991]), for trial judges are in the best position of weighing
conflicting declarations of witnesses in the light of the court’s opportunity
to observe and examine the witnesses’ conduct and attitude at the trial and in
the witness chair (People vs. Bolasa, 209 SCRA 416 [1992]). A sedulous examination of the record fails
to disclose any such facts or circumstances.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED, with
the modification that the civil indemnity is hereby increased to P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano,
(Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Vitug,
JJ., concur.