PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUPERTO SAN GABRIEL “UPENG” OR “JOJO”, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

When Rolando Rodela sipped his coffee at around 6:30 in the
evening of July 27, 1989, little did he know that it was his last cup before
the next crack of dawn.

He sat on the chair facing the table near the open door savoring
the taste of the hot beverage while his mother prepared supper in the kitchen
approximately one meter from where her son was when the assailant passed by
Rolando’s sister at the terrace fronting the house, barged his way in, and
repeatedly stabbed Rolando Rodela who sustained three wounds. This mayhem was perpetrated despite the
presence of the victim’s mother, Maria Areglo Rodela, and Teresita Rodela, the
victim’s sister, amidst the lighted fluorescent lamp which enabled the
terrified witnesses to identify the culprit who thereafter fled from the locus
criminis. The neighbors who
responded to the calls for help brought the body of the victim to the
Valenzuela District Hospital in Bulacan, to no avail.

Rosemarie Rodela, the widow of Rolando Rodela, was at home
feeding their child when she was informed by one of her cousins that her
husband had been stabbed. She was
accompanied by her brother to the hospital where she saw the lifeless body of
her husband whose intestines were protruding due to the sharp bladed instrument
used by the culprit who also managed to pierce other vital organs. The medico-legal officer attributed the
victim’s death to massive hemorrhage on account of the severed cartage artery
and large intestines.

It turned out that the alleged felon was Ruperto San Gabriel, a
close friend of the victim and a first cousin of the victim’s wife, who was
apprehended by a police officer
and the victim’s brother while at the Provincial Hospital of Calapan, Mindoro
where the suspect was recuperating after having been involved in a hacking
incident. From Calapan, Mindoro, they
proceeded to the Provincial Jail of Bulacan were the accused was detained for
the murder of Rolando Rodela (p. 2, Rollo).

Following arraignment and the reception of the People’s
inculpatory evidence, accused-appellant persisted in his plea of innocence
premised on alibi. He could not have
possibly executed the misdeed levelled against him, he claimed, because he had
transferred residence from Bulacan to Mindoro in 1971 until his arrest in July
of 1989, apart from the fact that he was the overseer of his mother’s fishpond
in Mindoro and that moreover, during the night in question, he and his
brother-in-law were fishing in the pond. This claim of exculpatory circumstances was amplified on the witness
stand by accused-appellant’s brother-in-law.

These protestations did not find merit the trial court’s eyes,
and thus verdict against accused-appellant was pronounced on April 12, 1993, in
this manner:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Ruperto San Gabriel guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and the court hereby sentenced
(sic) him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.

To indemnify the heirs of the victim P100,000.00.

To pay the heirs P50,000.00 moral damage and P15,000.00 actual
damage. With Costs.

SO ORDERED.

(p. 19, Rollo; p. 157, Record.)

which conclusion was drawn from the
following analysis of the trial judge, although expressed a bit ungramatically:

The evidence on record, shows the accused Ruperto San Gabriel is
well known to the wife of the victim Rosemarie Dumalay Rodela because they are
first cousins. The accused is also
known to the witness Teresita Rodela because they were childhood mates at
Liputan, Meycauayan, Bulacan. The
accused is also known to Maria Areglo Rodela the mother of the victim, hence no
doubt the witnesses Teresita Rodela and Maria Areglo Rodela could not have made
a mistake in identifying and pointing to the accused as the assailant of the
victim Rolando Rodela on the night of July 27, 1989 inside Maria Rodela’s house
at Liputan, Meycauayan, Bulacan while the deceased was drinking his coffee.

That on the night of the incident the house of Maria Rodela was
bright because their fluorescent light was on that is why she was able to
witness the incident from her place at the kitchen which was around four meters
away likewise Teresita Rodela was also able to witness the incident from her
place at the terrace which is only five meters away from the assailant.

That the attack by the accused upon the victim was so sudden that
the latter did not have the opportunity to defend himself resulting to his
death. The sudden attack constitutes
treachery that qualified the offense to murder.

In the light of the foregoing, the defense of Alibi of the accused
cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the witnesses pointing
to the accused as the killer of the deceased Rolando Rodela. Besides the accused has not shown any motive
for the witnesses to accused him of such serious crime, he even admitted in
court that he does not know of any reason why the witnesses accused him of
having killed the deceased Rolando Rodela.

(pp. 18-19, Rollo; pp. 155-156, Record.)

In the appeal at bench, accused-appellant sums up his arguments into the major
proposition of whether the court a
quo properly condemned him for the slaying of Rolando Rodela
considering that his and his brother-in?law’s exculpatory narration in
open court are more credible than the testimonial evidence of the People’s
witnesses (p. 31, Rollo).

The appeal is bereft of merit.

It is accused-appellant’s perception that his defense of alibi
had been sufficiently established via his open court declarations, as
confirmed by his brother-in-law, that on July 27, 1989 they were both fishing
at a 7-hectare fishpond in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro which locality is hundreds
of kilometers from Bulacan where the victim was killed on said date. But this question of whether the exculpatory
statements uttered by the defense are worthy of belief is premised on the
assessment made by the court of origin relative to their propensity to tell the
truth or to concoct a tale which evaluation, it cannot be gainsaid, is
naturally respected by the reviewing authority inasmuch as the trial judge was
in a better position to resolve the query, having heard and observed the
demeanor of the witnesses (People vs. Ocampo, 206 SCRA 223 [1992]). Verily, the task of assigning values to
declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently performed or
carried out by a trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such
testimony in the light of the defendant’s deportment, and the conclusions of
trial courts in this respect, command great weight and respect (People vs.
Magallanes, et. al., 65 O.G. 10216; 2 Regalado, Remedial Law
Compendium, 1989 Sixth Revised ed., p. 554).

At the opposite end of the weighing scale is the positive
identification of accused-appellant as the person responsible for the assault
as recollected by the victim’s mother:

Testimony of Maria Areglo

Q.   Will
you step by step tell this Court what was that unusual incident?

A.    At
that particular time and date, the door of our house was opened then and all
of a sudden, the accused Ruperto San Gabriel entered our house while my son was
seated and drinking coffee.

Q.   Thereafter
what else happened if there was anything else happened?

A.    By
the time he entered our house, he was carrying then a deadly weapon and he
kept on stabbing and stabbing my son.

Q.   Who
is your son who was stabbed repeatedly by the accused Ruperto San Gabriel?

A.    Rolando
Rodela, sir.

Q.   The
same Rolando Rodela who is the husband of your daughter-in-law Rosemarie
Rodela?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   How
far were you from the kitchen where you were at that time when accused Ruperto
San Gabriel repeatedly stabbed your son?

A.    From
the witness stand up to that chair. (.
. . [B]y agreement of the prosecution and defense is approximately one meter).

Q.   Can
you tell what was the relative position of your son Rolando Rodela in relation
to the accused when he was being repeatedly stabbed by him?

A.    He
was facing the table seated and drinking coffee.

(pp. 6-7, tsn, December 16, 1992
Underscoring supplied)

(pp. 6-7, tsn, December 16, 1991.)

which categorical declarations were
re-inforced by the victim’s sister, thusly:

Q.   Miss
Rodela, do you know the accused in this case Ruperto San Gabriel, alias Jojo
and alias Upeng?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Why
do you know him?

A.    He
is from our place, sir.

Q.   Where
is your place?

A.    Liputan,
Meycauayan, Bulacan, sir.

Q.   If
this Ruperto San Gabriel is now inside the courtroom, would you be able to
identify him?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Will
you please point to him?

A.    WITNESS
POINTING TO A PERSON IN THE COURTROOM WHO STOOD UP AND GAVE HIS NAME AS RUPERTO
SAN GABRIEL.

Q.   Now,
prior to July 27, 1989, for how long have you known the accused Ruperto San
Gabriel?

A.    For
a long time, sir.

Q.   For
how may years, Madam Witness?

A.    He
is my childhood mate, sir.

Q.   In
Liputan, Meycauayan, Bulacan?

A.    Yes,
sir.

x x x x

Q.    Then in the same place you have just
mentioned and on that date at about 6:30 p.m. in the evening, do you recall of
any unusual incident that took place?

A.    When
Ruperto San Gabriel arrived and suddenly entered our house, he immediately
stabbed my brother, sir.

(pp. 4-6, tsn, November 4, 1991; Underscoring supplied)

The foregoing testimony placing
accused-appellant at the scene of the crime brings to mind the oft-repeated
legal aphorism that the defense of alibi is subordinate in substance to the
positive identification made by the People’s witnesses (People vs. Vergara,
221 SCRA 611 [1993]).

Lastly, accused-appellant argues that he had no axe to grind
against the victim, a close friend and a cousin-in-law. Again, it must be stressed that ill-motive
is never an essential element of a crime and is thus legally inconsequential in
the case at bench in view of the affirmative, nay, categorical declarations and
assertions made by the People’s witnesses towards accused-appellant’s
accountability for the felony which was accomplished with alevosia (People
vs. Tareo, 58 Phil. 255; 1, Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Eleventh ed.,
1977, p. 65).

Nonetheless, the indemnity awarded to the heirs of Rolando Rodela
to the tune of P100,000.00 should be reduced to P50,000.00 concordant with
current jurisprudential doctrine (People vs. Magaluna, 205 SCRA 266
[1992]).

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby modified
only as to the civil indemnity as indicated above, and affirmed in all other
respects.

SO ORDERED.

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