PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL APOLONIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Rafael Apolonia appeals from a decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Nasugbu, Batangas, finding him guilty of murder.

The information filed against Apolonia and one John Doe read as
follows:

“That on or about the 17th day of September 1990, at about 3:00
o’clock in the afternoon, at Sitio Bayabasan, Barangay Aga, Municipality of
Nasugbu, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a long firearm, together
with one John Doe, whose identity and whereabouts are still unknown, conspiring
and confederating together, acting in common accord and mutually helping each
other, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with
the said firearm, one Pepito Alonzo y Ramos, suddenly and without warning,
thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds on his body, which caused his
instantaneous death.

Contrary to law.”^[1]

The John Doe has remained unidentified
and at large to date.

At arraignment, Apolonia entered a plea of not guilty.

After trial, the trial court found Apolonia guilty of murder
beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify the heirs of Pepito Alonzo in the amount of P80,000.00, by way of
actual, moral and exemplary damages.

The evidence submitted by the prosecution tended to establish the
following as the relevant facts.

Prosecution witness Aquilino Alonzo testified that on 17
September 1990, at about 3:00 p.m., he was in his house in Sitio Bayabasan, Barangay Aga, Nasugbu,
Batangas. Appellant Apolonia and an
unidentified companion dropped by Apolonia, then carrying a long firearm, asked
Aquilino Alonzo where his brother Pepito Alonzo was. Aquilino recalled that Apolonia appeared to be angry, for his
voice was loud and “mabalasik” [ferocious]. When Aquilino failed to tell them where they could find Pepito,
the two (2) left forthwith. Concerned
that something evil might befall his brother, Aquilino decided to follow the
two (2) men. Following the two (2) men
along a footpath, Aquilino heard
a gunshot. He hid himself behind a
mango tree and from there, he saw appellant Apolonia about eight (8) meters
away, fire his gun at a direction where Aquilino would shortly thereafter find
the dead body of Pepito Alonzo. At the
time of the shooting, the victim was near his assailants but Aquilino could not
see who the victim was since the two (2) men stood between Aquilino and the
victim, obscuring the line of sight of Aquilino. After the shooting, Apolonia and his companion departed in haste
from the scene. Aquilino then walked
over to the spot where the shooting had just taken place only to see Pepito
Alonzo lifeless, lying on the ground, face up.

Aquilino Alonzo then went to the Barangay Chairman to seek the
latter’s help and from there, proceeded to the Nasugbu Police Station to report
the slaying he had just witnessed.^[2] After
a complaint had been filed with the trial court, a warrant of arrest was
issued; but appellant and his unidentified companion could not be found. More than a year later, on 5 October 1991,
acting on an informer’s tip, the police arrested appellant Apolonia in Tagaytay
City where he was supposed to meet his daughter who had just arrived from
Singapore.^[3]

Pedro C. Digno, a member of the Philippine National Police,
testified that on 17 September 1990, Aquilino Alonzo reported the shooting to
him. He immediately proceeded to the
scene of the killing with another officer, SPO1 Nemesio Barcelon. There he saw the lifeless body of Pepito
Alonzo. A search of the vicinity of the
shooting yielded two (2) empty shells of .30 caliber rifle (Garand) bullets and
one (1) live round of ammunition of the same caliber; these were brought to the
police station.

Dra. Rose Lucas Montemar, the Municipal Health Officer of
Nasugbu, Batangas, examined the body of Pepito Alonzo on 17 September 1990 and
issued a Death Certificate. In her
autopsy report, Dra. Montemar described the injury sustained by Pepito Alonzo
on the right back side of his head as a “mutilated wound,” “warat,” or “sabog”
with Pepito’s brains spilling out from the wound. The wound had been caused by a gunshot but from the appearance of
the wound which was very large, she testified, she could not determine the
entry and exit points of the bullet. Further,
she could not state with assurance whether the wound had been caused by only
one or by more than one bullets. Lastly, although the exact distance of the assailant from the victim
could not be determined, she deduced that, from the size of the wound, Pepito
Alonzo had been shot at close range.^[4]

For his part, Apolonia controverted the prosecution’s version of
the events of that fateful day.

Apolonia testified that on 17 September 1990, from 7:00 in the
morning until 5:00 in the afternoon, he was with Ernesto Tampis, then
preoccupied with farming in Barangay Medina, Magallanes, Cavite and that he did
not leave Barangay Medina that day. After 5:00 p.m., he went home with Tampis. He had been in the employ of Ernesto Tampis, then a Barangay
Captain, as a farm-hand since 1989 and had lived in Tampis’ house in Medina
eversince. Appellant claims that since
he started working in Medina, he had come back to Sitio Bayabasan to visit his
family only twice, since his wife frequently went to Medina to secure money
from Apolonia with which to purchase provisions for their family.^[5]
On 5 October 1991, Apolonia asked leave from Ernesto Tampis to go to Tagaytay
City to meet his daughter who was arriving from Singapore. There appellant was apprehended by the
police and brought to the Nasugbu Police Headquarters. Only then did he learn that he was charged
with the murder of Pepito Alonzo.^[6] The
testimony of Apolonia was corroborated by defense-witness Ernesto Tampis in
court.

In the present appeal, Apolonia raises the following issues:

I.

The lower court seriously erred in giving full faith and credit to
the lone testimony of Aquilino Alonzo; and

II.

The lower court gravely erred in finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged despite lack of strong and convincing
evidence.

In respect of the first issue, appellant Apolonia contends that
the testimony of Aquilino Alonzo was replete with contradictions. When Aquilino was asked by defense counsel
if he had seen Apolonia on the morning of 17 September 1990, he first answered
in the affirmative, but later testified that he could not tell if he saw
Apolonia in the morning or in the afternoon because he (Aquilino) had no watch
and it was cloudy that day.^[7] Under
these circumstances, Apolonia adds, Aquilino Alonzo could not have known what
time Apolonia and his companion came to the latter’s hut.

Examination of the transcript shows that Aquilino Alonzo became
somewhat confused during cross-examination. The confusion was, however, explained with the help of the trial judge’s
clarificatory questions.^[8]

We consider that if there was an inconsistency in this respect in
the testimony of Aquilino Alonzo, it was a minor inconsistency which in fact
enhances Aquilino’s credibility as it indicates that his responses were
unrehearsed.^[9]
This is specially true where, as in the instant case, the witness was not shown
to have any motive to lie and falsely to charge Apolonia, his wife’s uncle, in
a fabricated charge of murder. The
records do not show any previous ill-feeling or grudge or hatred on the part of
Aquilino Alonzo against appellant Apolonia. To the contrary, during cross-examination, Aquilino testified that his
relationship with Apolonia had been a harmonious one, that they had had no
misunderstanding; that in fact they used to take their meals together and that
Aquilino had considered Apolonia as a “barkada.”^[10]

The trial court accepted as straightforward and worthy of
credence the testimony of Aquilino Alonzo and there is nothing in the record to
indicate error on the part of the trial court in doing so. We find no compelling
reason to depart from the firmly settled rule that, in respect of the appraisal
of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial judge are to be accorded
great weight and are not to be disturbed, unless the judge had obviously
overlooked facts of substance and value which, if taken into account, would
affect the result of the case.^[11]

In respect of the second issue, Apolonia avers that the lone
testimony of Aquilino Alonzo was inadequate to establish his (Apolonia’s) guilt
beyond reasonable doubt since Aquilino had not actually seen Apolonia shoot
Pepito Alonzo to death.

Appellant Apolonia’s argument does not persuade. It is not indispensably necessary that an
eye-witness saw the accused in the very act of shooting Pepito Alonzo.^[12]
In the present case, Aquilino Alonzo did not in fact see Apolonia aim his rifle
at Pepito Alonzo and pull the trigger. As earlier noted, Apolonia and his still unidentified companion stood
between Aquilino Alonzo to their rear, on the one hand, and the victim Pepito
Alonzo in the front, upon the other hand. The evidence against appellant Apolonia is consequently circumstantial
in nature. The well-settled doctrine is
that the conviction of an accused may be based on circumstantial evidence
provided that:

(a)      there is more than one (1) circumstance
proven;

(b)      the facts or circumstances from which the
inferences are derived are established; and

(c)      that the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce the conviction that the accused was guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.^[13]

In the case at bar, the circumstantial evidence adduced by the
prosecution satisfied the quantum of proof and the requisites of conviction
upon the basis of circumstantial evidence. The following circumstances very clearly point to Apolonia as the doer
of the crime committed:

(1)      On the day Pepito Alonzo was killed,
appellant Apolonia and a companion went to the house of Aquilino Alonzo looking
for Pepito;

(2)      Appellant Apolonia was then armed with a
long firearm;

(3)      Appellant Apolonia appeared angry;

(4)      While following appellant Apolonia and his
companion, Aquilino Alonzo heard a gunshot;

(5)      Aquilino Alonzo hid and from his hiding
place, he saw Apolonia fire his gun at someone;

(6)      Aquilino Alonzo saw appellant Apolonia and
his companion flee from the scene of the crime;

(7)      Aquilino proceeded to the spot where
appellant Apolonia had aimed and fired his gun and there found the dead body of
his brother Pepito Alonzo;

(8)      A search of the scene of the shooting by
the police yielded two (2) empty .30 caliber rifle shells and one (1) live .30
caliber rifle bullet; and

(9)      The autopsy report showed that the cause
of death of Pepito Alonzo was a large and gaping gunshot wound at the back of
his head.

Appellant Apolonia next argues that his alibi had been
incorrectly disregarded by the trial court. He insists that he could not have been at Sitio Bayabasan, Barangay Aga,
Nasugbu, Batangas, on 17 September 1990, because he was then in Barangay
Medina, Magallanes, Cavite. Apolonia’s
defense of alibi had been corroborated, as noted earlier, by Ernesto Tampis who
happens to be a cousin of Apolonia’s wife.^[14]
Apolonia adds that there is only one (1) passenger jeepney which takes passengers
from Barangay Medina to the National Highway and vice-verse; this jeepney would
leave Barangay Medina at 9:00 o’clock in the morning and return at 5:00 o’clock
in the afternoon.

Once more, the Court is not convinced. Apolonia had during trial testified that the distance between
Sitio Bayabasan in Nasugbu, Batangas and Barangay Medina in Magallanes, Cavite
is twenty (20) kilometers and that one could proceed from one place to the
other by foot.^[15]

In order to prosper, alibi must be so convincing as to preclude
any doubt that the accused could not have been physically present at the place
of the crime or its vicinity, at the time of its commission.^[16]
In People v. Torres,^[17] this Court noted that the defense of
alibi is weak if it is established mainly by appellant himself or by his
relatives.^[18]
We consider that this is so in the instant case.

The trial court found that the slaying of Pepito Alonzo was
attended by treachery. It is clear from
the testimony of Dra. Rose Montemar that the gunshot wound sustained by Pepito
Alonzo was located at the right back portion of the head and that the deceased
had no other injuries apart from his gaping mutilated head wound. Thus, it is evident that the victim was shot
from behind, with his back towards his killer. Moreover, appellant Apolonia does not pretend that Pepito Alonzo was
armed. It has many times been held that
treachery exists when a defenseless victim was shot or stabbed from behind and
that this shows that the appellant had employed means of attack which offered
no risk to himself from any defensive or retaliatory act which the victim might
have taken.^[19]

The Court, however, is not convinced that evident premeditation
had been shown in the case at bar. Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated where, as in the instant
case, no evidence had been presented to show the nature or the time of
appellant’s planning and preparation to slay his victim or when the plan was
first conceived.^[20]

There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the
penalty for murder (reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death)
should be imposed on appellant in its medium period, that is, reclusion
perpetua.

In respect of the damages awarded by the trial court, the record shows
no indication of what evidence was offered to and accepted by the court as to
the nature of the injuries and the amount of such damages.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the trial court’s
decision in Criminal Case No. 634 is hereby AFFIRMED, with the following
modification that appellant Rafael Apolonia is hereby ORDERED to pay the heirs
of Pepito Alonzo an indemnity for death in the amount of P50,000.00, in lieu
of “actual, moral and exemplary damages.” Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Romero, Melo, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Information, rollo pp. 7-8.

^[2]
TSN, testimony of Aquilino Alonzo, 12
August 1992, pp. 4-60.

^[3]
RTC Decision, pp. 3-4.

^[4]
TSN, testimony of Dra. Rose Montemar,
22 September 1992, pp. 3-8.

^[5]
RTC Decision, 3 August 1993, pp. 6-7; Rollo,
pp. 21­-22.

^[6]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 6.

^[7]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 9.

^[8]
This is part of Aquilino Alonzo’s
testimony during cross-examination:

Q:    On
that morning of September 17, 1990, have you ever seen this Rafael in your
Barangay?

A:   Yes,
sir.

Q:   Where did you see Rafael in the morning of
September 17, 1990?

A:   He
went to our hut, sir.

Q:    What
time more or less, was that morning of September 17, 1990 when he went to your
hut?

A: I cannot remember anymore, sir.

Q:   Was that in the morning or in the afternoon
when accused and his companion went?

A:    I
cannot remember whether it was in the morning or afternoon because I have no
watch and the weather was not fine on that date, sir.

Q: Was
it before lunch time or after lunch time?

A:    I
cannot remember anymore because I myself was not able to take my lunch sir.

COURT: Proceed.

Atty. Cortez:

Q:    So
you do not know the time when Rafael and his unidentified companion arrived at
your hut, is that what you mean?

Prosecutor Marajas:

Your honor, I think the question will be
quite vague on account of the fact that based on the prior question propounded
by the defense counsel it seems to be that Rafael Apolonia went to that place
[twice], your honor.

Atty. Cortez:

Your honor, that is what the witness states,
your honor. This is a murder case.

COURT:

And besides he is being asked that before the
accused and his companion went to his house, did he see the accused, that is
the question.

A:    On September 17, 1990 he went to our hut,
sir.

COURT: (to witness)

Are you referring to that incident when he
went to your hut already carrying the firearm?

A:    Yes, sir.

COURT:

Let’s stay that way.

(TSN, Testimony of Aquilino Alonzo, supra,
pp.16-17).

^[9]
People vs. Armada, Jr., 225 SCRA
644 (1993); People vs. Salamat, 225 SCRA 499 (1993); People vs.
Dulay, 217 SCRA 103 (1993); People vs. Francisco, 213 SCRA 746 (1992);
People vs. Diaz, 212 SCRA 147 (1992).

^[10]
TSN, testimony of Aquilino Apolonia, 19
August 1992, p. 15.

^[11]
People vs. Orehuela, et al.,
G.R. Nos. 108780-81, 29 April 1994; People vs. Verchez, et al., G.R.
Nos. 82729-32, 15 June 1994; People vs. Armada, supra; People vs.
Lizada, 225 SCRA 708 (1993); People vs. Tidong, 225 SCRA 324 (1993).

^[12]
People vs. De La Pena, G.R. No.
104839, 29 April 1994,

^[13]
Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of
Court; People vs. Ruelan, G.R. No. 106152, 19 April 1994; People vs.
Ilaoa et al., G.R. No. 94308, 16 June 1994, People vs. Alvero, Jr. 224
SCRA 16 (1993); People vs. Liwag, 225 SCRA 46 (1993).

^[14]
TSN, Testimony of Rafael Apolonio, 22
April 1993, p.7).

^[15]
TSN, Testimony of Rafael Apolonia, 23 March 1993, p. 25.

^[16]
People vs. Oracoy, 224 SCRA 759 (1993); People vs. Mejorada, 224
SCRA 837 (1993); People vs. Dominguez, 217 SCRA 170 (1993); People vs.
Flores, 217 SCRA 613 (1993); People vs. Cabuang, 217 SCRA 675 (1993).

^[17]
G.R. No. 105389, 28 April 1994.

^[18]
People vs. Solis, 195 SCRA 465 (1991), People vs. Berringuel, 192
SCRA 561 (1990).

^[19]
People vs. Villalobos, 209 SCRA
304; People vs. Asil, 141
SCRA 286 (1986); see generally,
People vs. Melgar, 157
SCRA 718 (1988).

^[20]
People vs. Salvador, 224 SCRA
819 (1993); People vs. Besana, supra; People vs.
Wenceslao, 212 SCRA 560 (1992) People vs. Mallari, 212 SCRA 777 (1992); People vs. Florida, 214 SCRA 227 (1992).