PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AMBROSIO CONDE, JR., ELEAZAR CONDE, VICENTE CONDE, SR., AND EUSEBIO CONDE ALIAS “BOY”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Conde

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in a murder case. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Ambrocio Conde, Junior, Eleazar Conde, Vicente Conde, Senior, and Eusebio Conde, four relatives accused of hacking and stabbing Alberto Romero to death one evening in September 1995 in Claveria, Masbate. The case matters for the bar candidate because it is a compact illustration of three recurring examination points: the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence under the Rules of Evidence, the strict requirements of the defense of alibi, and the correct appreciation of nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. It also shows how the Supreme Court treats the factual findings of the trial judge and the alleged bias of witnesses who are related to the victim.

Procedural History

An information for murder was filed against the four accused before the Regional Trial Court, Fifth Judicial Region, Branch 48, sitting at Masbate, Masbate. All four pleaded not guilty and were tried. On April 22, 1998, the trial court rendered its decision convicting them of murder, qualified by taking advantage of superior strength, with the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of 50,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the rejection of their alibi and denial and their conviction on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but struck out the aggravating circumstance of nighttime.

Facts

On the evening of September 17, 1995, at about seven o'clock, Alberto Romero arrived at the house of his mother-in-law, Guillerma Cuervo, in Sitio Bugtong-Lubi, Poblacion, Claveria, Masbate. He sat on a bench in the wall-less kitchen, talking with his wife Jelita Romero and his sister-in-law Flory Bino. The four accused appeared suddenly. The two women recognized them by the light of a kerosene lamp hanging from the ceiling.

Ambrocio Conde held the victim's head while Eleazar Conde stabbed him with a bolo. Vicente Conde, Senior, and Eusebio Conde stood by. The victim rolled to the ground, escaped the blows, stood up, and ran downhill. All four accused gave chase. The women shouted for help, but no one came. The following day, the victim's lifeless body was found dumped in the water in the ranch of Mayor Eddie Andueza, bearing hack wounds. The medico-legal officer testified that the cause of death was massive hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab and hacking wounds, and that the injuries could have been inflicted by more than one person, with the assailants having superiority in number and arms.

At trial, all four accused interposed denial and alibi. Vicente Conde, Senior, claimed he was at the municipal police station from six to eight o'clock that evening, corroborated by two police officers. The three other accused claimed they were in their respective houses, corroborated by relatives and by a goldsmith who slept in the house of Eusebio Conde. The trial court convicted them all. The motive for the killing was not established, and the victim was a relative of the accused.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in brushing aside the defense of alibi and denial put up by the accused.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting all the accused of murder on circumstantial evidence allegedly insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was correctly appreciated.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

This is the rule the Court applies in rejecting the appellants' claim that the evidence against them was insufficient, because the conviction rests on a chain of proven circumstances rather than on direct testimony of the killing itself.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes murder, provides the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, and the Court cites it in fixing the penalty:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise; 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin; 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity; 5. With evident premeditation; 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

The Court uses this provision to confirm that the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death, and that reclusion perpetua is the proper penalty where no aggravating circumstance attends the killing.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the defense of alibi must fail. For alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met; it is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else, he must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Here, the police station where Vicente Conde, Senior, claimed to be was only two kilometers from the scene, and the houses of the other accused were likewise only two kilometers away. The goldsmith witness was asleep from seven o'clock in the evening until the following morning, so the accused could have slipped out without his knowledge.

On the second issue, the Court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient. The two women were conversing with the victim when the four accused appeared; they recognized the accused by the light of the kerosene lamp; they saw Ambrocio hold the victim's head, Eleazar attempt to hack him, and the two others watch; and they saw all four pursue the victim when he fled. That was the last time the victim was seen alive, and his corpse was found the next day. These circumstances, linked together, showed that the four accused conspired and had a hand in the killing. The Court also held that relationship by itself does not give rise to the presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it impair the credibility of a witness, and that the factual findings of the trial court deserve respect because the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the factual findings but disagreed with the appreciation of nighttime. Although the crime was committed at seven o'clock in the evening, no evidence showed that nighttime was especially sought by the offenders to consummate the crime or to facilitate its commission. Nighttime only becomes an aggravating circumstance when it was specially sought by the offender, or taken advantage of by him, or it facilitated the commission of the crime by insuring his immunity from capture. The Court therefore struck out nighttime from the dispositive portion, and since no aggravating circumstance attended the killing, imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

First, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and the combination of all the circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances must form an unbroken chain leading reasonably to the conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the author of the crime.

Second, for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission; mere proof that he was elsewhere is not enough.

Third, relationship of a witness to the victim does not by itself give rise to a presumption of bias or impair credibility.

Fourth, nighttime is an aggravating circumstance only when it was specially sought by the offender, taken advantage of by him, or facilitated the commission of the crime by insuring his immunity from capture. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is punished by reclusion perpetua to death, and where neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attend the killing, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court convicting the accused of murder and imposing reclusion perpetua, but struck out the aggravating circumstance of nighttime from the dispositive portion.

Remember This

Remember the rule that alibi must be proved by physical impossibility, and that nighttime aggravates only when it was specially sought, taken advantage of, or used to insure immunity from capture. Examiners use this case to test circumstantial evidence under Section 4 of Rule 133, the strict requirements of alibi, and the correct appreciation of aggravating circumstances in murder.