PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PABLO AMODIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Amodia

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Pablo Amodia, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. Pablo was charged, together with three others, with killing Felix Olandria by beating him on the head with a piece of wood and stabbing him repeatedly. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the rules on positive identification of an accused, the proper treatment of alibi corroborated by a close relative, and the proof of conspiracy and abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance.

Procedural History

An Information dated February 21, 1997 was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 38, charging Pablo and three others with murder. Pablo moved to quash on the ground of mistaken identity and the staleness of the warrant of arrest; the trial court denied the motion. He was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. The other accused remained at large.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Pablo of murder as a principal by conspiracy, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the heirs of the victim moral damages and funeral and burial expenses. Pablo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modification, correcting the provision applied and adjusting the awards of damages. The case then reached the Supreme Court on appeal, and the Court affirmed the conviction.

Facts

At around twelve midnight on November 26, 1996, Romildo Ceno and Mario Bitco were at a house in Pembo, Makati City when they heard a noise and someone shouting from below the C-5 bridge, some forty to fifty meters away. Romildo and Mario went to the bridge and saw five persons: the victim, Pablo, Arnold Partosa, George Palacio, and Damaso Amodia. Romildo knew all of them; the victim was his neighbor, and the others were residents of the same zone.

About three arms-length away, under the light of a Meralco post some five to six meters from the scene, Romildo saw Pablo holding the victim's right hand and Arnold holding the other hand. George stood behind the victim and clubbed him on the head, while Damaso, in front, stabbed him three times. Luther Caberte, passing by the bridge, also saw the group ganging up on the victim from about fifteen meters away under a lamppost. He saw Pablo holding the victim's hand while Damaso stabbed him. Both eyewitnesses knew Pablo personally; Luther had been his neighbor since 1986 and had played basketball with him.

The victim's body was found later that morning, and a post-mortem examination by a National Bureau of Investigation medico-legal officer showed three stab wounds, one on the left chest penetrating the heart, and others involving the stomach and pancreas, with the cause of death being hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds. Pablo's defense was alibi. He claimed that at the time of the stabbing he was at the house of his brother Elias, taking care of the children while Elias brought his wife to a lying-in clinic, and that his sister Elma corroborated his whereabouts.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of Pablo for the crime charged was proven beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding his defense of alibi.
• Whether or not the existence of conspiracy between Pablo and the other assailants was proven.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the constitutional presumption of innocence, which Pablo invoked in arguing that his alibi was disregarded. The provision reads:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

This bears on the case because the Court weighed the prosecution's evidence against the presumption of innocence that stands in Pablo's favor until overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The decision also treats the killing as murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, a circumstance under the Revised Penal Code. The relevant provision reads:

There is an aggravating circumstance when the offender takes advantage of superior strength, or employs means to weaken the defense of the person attacked.

This bears on the case because the concerted action of four assailants against one victim, holding his hands while another stabbed him, was held to demonstrate abuse of superior strength and employment of means to weaken the defense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. The factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses, and its assessment of their probative weight are given high respect, if not conclusive effect, absent cogent facts of substance that were ignored or misconstrued. The Court found no such exceptional reason. The conviction rested on the positive identification by Romildo and Luther, whose accounts were clear, categorical, and consistent, and whose proximity to the scene, the well-lighted condition of the place, and their familiarity with the victim and the assailants supported the accuracy of their identification. No evidence showed ill will against Pablo or a reason to fabricate.

The Court also rejected the argument that the eyewitnesses erred because the accused's name was allegedly Pablito, not Pablo. Positive identification pertains to proof of identity and not necessarily to the name of the assailant. A mistake in the name of the accused is not equivalent to a mistake in his identity, especially where the evidence shows the accused is the person pointed to as a perpetrator, and where the eyewitnesses knew him through association as neighbors and basketball game mates.

On the alibi, the Court held that alibi cannot overcome positive identification. For alibi to prosper, there must be clear and convincing evidence showing that at the time of the commission of the crime, it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the situs criminis, the scene of the crime. Elma's testimony failed to establish that impossibility, since she admitted that the house and the bridge were a ten-minute walking distance apart, and she saw Pablo only at one and two in the morning, leaving open the possibility that he left and returned without her knowing. The Court scrutinized her testimony with utmost care because she is Pablo's sister, recognizing that blood ties may lead some to favor relationship over objective truth.

On the second issue, the Court found conspiracy proven. The convergence of the four accused at the scene, the possession of a knife by Damaso, the absence of other injuries on the victim, and the location of the three stab wounds all directed at delicate parts of the body indicated a unity of purpose and intent to kill. The act of one was therefore the act of the other.

Doctrine

First, alibi cannot overcome positive identification. For alibi to be given evidentiary value, there must be clear and convincing evidence showing that at the time of the commission of the crime, it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the situs criminis.

Second, positive identification pertains essentially to proof of identity and not necessarily to the name of the assailant. A mistake in the name of the accused is not equivalent to a mistake in his identity when sufficient evidence shows that the accused is pointed to as one of the perpetrators.

Third, conspiracy is proven where the acts of the accused show a unity of purpose in the accomplishment of a criminal objective, and the act of one is the act of all. Where several assailants take advantage of their combined strength against a single victim, holding his hands while another stabs him, the killing is qualified to murder by abuse of superior strength and employment of means to weaken the defense.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Pablo Amodia for murder and upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of damages in favor of the heirs of the victim.

Remember This

Memorize this line: alibi cannot overcome positive identification, and it prospers only upon clear and convincing proof of physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime. Examiners use this case to test the treatment of alibi corroborated by a close relative and the rule that a mistake in the name of the accused is not a mistake in his identity.