PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PIAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DONATO PETIL AND BONIFACIO LUMANGLAS (AT LARGE), ACCUSED. DONATO PETIL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Donato Petil
and Bonifacio Lumanglas
were charged in the Regional Trial Court, 4th Judicial Region, BRANCH XXXIV, Calamba, Laguna, with murder, in an
information which reads:

“That on or about February 4, 1979 at Brgy. Bitin, Bay, Laguna
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with one Bonifacio
Lumanglas of Bo. Abuyon,
San Narciso, Quezon, the
latter still at large, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, attack, assault
and stab one Fortunato del Valle with deadly weapons,
thereby inflicting upon the latter serious stab wounds on the different parts
of his body which caused his immediate death.”

The accused Bonifacio Lumanglas eluded arrest and is at large.  Hence, trial proceeded only as against the
accused Donato Petil who is
now appealing from the decision finding him guilty and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Fortunato del
Valle the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINE PESOS AND 90/100 (P8,109.90) representing actual damages as well as compensation
for the death of the deceased in the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00).

The evidence for the prosecution which the trial court accepted
as representing the facts of the case is summarized in the People’s brief as
follows:

“It appears that at about 7:00
o’clock in the evening of February
4, 1979, Cesar Natividad and deceased Fortunato del Valle, who are both jeepney drivers of the Tanauan­
San Pablo route, were proceeding on a Toyota
vehicle to Barrio Bitin, Bay, Laguna, with Fortunato driving. 
They were coming from San Felix, Sto. Tomas, Batangas and arrived at Sipit, Bitin, at about 9:00 o’clock
in the evening as Fortunato brought his ‘compadre‘ home. 
Thereafter, they pro­ceeded to the Philippine Infrastructure, Inc. (PII)
at Bitin Bay,
Laguna, where Fortunato alighted from the vehicle to
buy cigarrettes at a nearby store (pp. 4-13, 30, tsn., Oct. 9, 1979).  Cesar Natividad
also alighted from the Toyota and
followed Fortunato about 2 meters behind (pp. 49-50, tsn., Nov. 7, 1979).  On the way to the store, Fortunato
was met by appellant Donato Petil
and his brother-in-law Bonifacio Lumanglas.  Donato placed his
arms around the neck of Fortunato, and as both of
them were facing the store, Bonifacio, coming from
the front of them, stabbed Fortunato several times,
as Donato also stabbed Fortunato
at the back, prompting prosecution witness Cesar Natividad
to shout:  ‘Bakit
ninyo siya sinaksak?’ (pp. 13-20, pp. 42-43, tsn., Ibid; pp. 60-61, 65, tsn., Nov.
23, 1979).

“Fortunato del
Valle fell in a kneeling position, and Cesar Natividad
together with Catalino Umelin
lifted him and brought him to Sto. Tomas and then to Lipa City
as Fortunato was hovering between life and
death.  Accused Donato
Petil and Bonifacio Lumanglas by then had already gone (pp. 21-25, tsn.,
Ibid; pp. 63-64, tsn., Nov. 23, 1979).  Fortunato finally died (p. 25, tsn.,
Ibid).  On February 5, 1979, Cesar Natividad
gave the statement to the police that he saw the stabbing incident (pp. 28-30, tsn., Nov. 7, 1979).”

The appellant raised the following assignments of errors:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISCOUNTING OR GLOSSING OVER THE SERIOUS
FLAWS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSE­CUTION.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REJECTING THE DEFENSE OF PETIL AS ONE OF
ALIBI.

III.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETIL’S LEAVING THE PII PLANT
IS INCONSISTENT WITH HIS INNOCENCE.

IV.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REJECTING THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS
MARANAN.

IV.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY BETWEEN
ACCUSED BONIFACIO LUMANGLAS (AT LARGE) AND
PETIL.

VI.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING PETIL INSTEAD OF ACQUITTING
HIM.

The records of the case show that the findings of facts of the
trial court are supported by convincingly credible evidence.  The appellant has failed to show reversible
error.

Appellant’s defense is one of alibi.  He passes the blame to his co-accused Lumanglas who is at large. 
He also narrates a story of torture. 
According to Petil, as foreman-carpenter, on February 4, 1979, he was at Barrio Bitin, Bay, Laguna, supervising the work at the Philippine
Infrastructure, Inc. (PII).  He started
to work at 7:00 A.M., and stayed up to
6:00 A.M., the following day, working
overtime, because the Ministry of Energy needed the place as a landing pad for
helicopters.  At about 8:20 in the evening of February 4, 1979, while he was supervising work
inside the batching plant of the PII, the deceased Fortunato
del Valle came and inquired from him about the form
lumber he was asking.  The appellant
allegedly told him to see Engineer Luinario as the
form lumber is not his and he cannot decide on the request.  Fortunato then
cursed Donato, and holding the latter’s shirt collar,
pushed him, causing him to fall to the ground face down.  Fortunato then
challenged him to a fight which he did not accept.  After the two were separated, Antonio Maranan arrived telling the appellant that his
brother-in-law, Bonifacio Lumanglas,
stabbed Fortunato del
Valle.  Maranan
also advised him to leave and go home for fear that the relatives of Fortunato might retaliate against him.  Petil rode on a
truck together with Antonio Maranan and proceeded to Sto. Tomas, Batangas, where he
alighted.  He spent the night at Barangay San Felix, Sto. Tomas,
and then proceeded to Tanauan, where he took a truck
to Lipa City and then boarded another vehicle to Batangas City arriving at Kumintang
Ilaya, Batangas at about
4:30 A.M., of February 5, 1979.  While
waiting for a ride for Sampaga, Batangas City,
a jeep, wherein Sgt. Angel del Valle, Cesar Natividad, Alfredo Pugela and Dondon Arellano were on board, arrived.  Sgt. del Valle
hog-tied him to a post of the jeep and brought him to the Constabulary
Headquarters at Batangas
City.  On the way Sgt. del
Valle poked a gun at his temple and pressed the trigger but it failed to fire,
so Sgt. del Valle hit him with the same gun in the chest and he lost
consciousness.  He regained consciousness
between San Jose and Batangas City
on the way to Lipa
City.  They stopped at the Villa
Hospital at Lipa City
where Sgt. del Valle inquired from his father whether Fortunato was already dead. 
The father, mother, wife and sister of Fortunato
ganged up on him, dealing blows and hitting his head against the jeepney post.  Sgt. del Valle again hit him with his gun and he lost
consciousness a second time.  He regained
consciousness only when they were already at Maraoy, Lipa City.  He was brought to the poblacion
of Sto. Tomas, Batangas,
where he was mauled by CAT students at the prod­ding of Sgt. del
Valle.  Later, he was taken to the house
of Balbino del Valle at San
Felix, Sto. Tomas, Batangas City,
where he was threatened with death, intimidated and later paraded around the
barrio by relatives of the de­ceased announcing him as a criminal before he was
turned over to the Bay Police authorities.

It is already a settled rule that alibi is a weak defense for it
is easy of fabrication.  (People v.
Ragas, 44 SCRA 152; People v. Mori, 55 SCRA 382; People v. Dereje,
56 SCRA 554; People v. Zapatero, 58 SCRA 450; and
People v. Coronado, G.R. No. 68932, Oct. 28, 1986).  For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is
not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere when the crime was committed
but that he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him
to have been at the scene of the crime. 
(People v. Benaraba, 129 SCRA 266; People v. Esmael, 37 SCRA 601; People v. Diaz, 55 SCRA 178; People v.
Turalba, 55 SCRA 697; People v. Baylon,
57 SCRA 114; People v. Cortez, 57 SCRA 308; and People v. Coronado, supra).

In the case at bar, taking into consideration the distance of 250
meters (trial court’s finding) from the batching plant, where the appellant
claims he was supervising his men when the stabbing incident happened, to the
scene of the crime, the possibility of his physically being at the latter site
is beyond question.

Furthermore, alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification of prosecution witnesses. 
(People v. Manalo, 135 SCRA 84; People v. Nepomuceno, 136 SCRA 556; People v. Jones, 137 SCRA 166;
People v. Arbois, 138 SCRA 24; People v. Canamo, 138 SCRA 141; People v. Sinaw-ay,
138 SCRA 221; People v. Gani, 139 SCRA 301; and
People v. Coronado, supra).  The
appellant was distinctly and positively identified by eyewitnesses.  Cesar Natividad saw
appellant stabbing the victim and was so surprised by the suddenness of the
attack that he exclaimed, “Bakit ninyo siya sinaksak?”

The alleged beatings and maulings he
claims to have received from a peace officer, students, and other per­sons have
nothing to do with the credibility of the wit­nesses who testified against him.

Appellant also faults the trial court’s conclusion of conspiracy
between him and Bonifacio Lumanglas
despite an alleged absolute lack of proof.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
to commit a crime and decide to commit it. 
(Revised Penal Code, Art. 8; People v. Rojas, G.R.
Nos. L-46960-62, Jan. 8, 1987; People v. Ogapay,
66 SCRA 209; People v. Alonzo, 73 SCRA 484; People v. Alviz,
122 SCRA 815; and People v. Veloso, G.R. Nos.
38551-53, Feb. 27, 1987).  While it is
desirable that the conspiracy be proved by direct evidence, like an express
understanding among the plotters affirming their commitment and defin­ing their
respective roles, it may nevertheless be established at times by circumstantial
evidence only.  (People v. Rojas, supra;
People v. Alcantara, 33 SCRA 812; People v. Colman,
103 Phil. 6; People v. Mejia, 55 SCRA 453; People v. Candado,
81 SCRA 1; People v. Roncal, 79 Phil. 509; and People
v. Veloso, supra).  The appel­lant and Bonifacio
Lumanglas are brothers-in-law.  The attack by Bonifacio
Lumanglas on the victim was simul­taneous with the
appellant’s holding and stabbing del Valle from
behind.  Prior to the stabbing incident,
there was an altercation between the appellant and del
Valle where­in the latter pushed the appellant causing him to fall to the
ground, face down, yet, the appellant did not accept the challenge of del Valle
to a fight.  The appellant’s bold attack
on del Valle was only made later when the assurance of
assistance from his brother-in-law was pre­sent.  These circumstances indicate conspiracy
between them.

WHEREFORE, the JUDGMENT appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED.  Costs
against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.