PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILBUR ABOGA Y EVANGELISTA ALIAS “WILLY”, RODOLFO BAS NAVARRA ALIAS “BOY ILONGGO” ALIAS BOY BRITANNICO’ AND JOHN DOE ALIAS “LI…

This is an appeal interposed by the accused Wilbur Aboga y Evangelista alias Willy from the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89,
finding him guilty of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Emiterio Roquid the sums of
P12,000.00, as compensatory damages; P10,000.00 as
moral damages and P1,200.00 as funeral expenses, and to pay his proportionate
costs.

The information filed against the accused alleged:

“That on or about the 22^nd day of August 1979, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused,
conspiring with, confederating together and mutually helping one another, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
with intent to kill and qualified by evident premeditation and taking advantage
of superior strength, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of
EMITERIO ROQUID Y CLEOFAS by then and there hacking him with bolos, thereby
inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and
immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said
victim in such amount as may be awarded to them under the provisions of the
Civil Code.”

The lower court found the following facts
established:

“At about 6:30 in the evening of August 21, 1979 accused Rodolfo
Navarra alias Boy Britanico
was at the store of Ricardo Aboga, father of accused
Wilbur Aboga, at Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, talking about the former’s desire to rent the house of the latter, at which
accused Navarra requested Ricardo Aboga, who agreed, to transfer to the latter’s house without
paying advance rental.

“Accused Navarra was thankful. 
And, because of this, he invited Ricardo Aboga
to celebrate with him.  For this purpose, at the instance of
accused Navarra, Ricardo Aboga, who guaranteed for the said accused, accompanied
accused Navarra to buy one (1) case of beer from his
daughter on credit, as their own beer supply had already been
exhausted.

“Ricardo Aboga, cooked pancit for their ‘pulotan‘, and he and accused Navarra started drinking at 7:30 P.M.

“While thus drinking beer at the same time
conversing with each other, the brothers:  Graciano Aldabe, Antonio Aldabe, and Alberto Aldabe, as
well as Tommy Tubal, arrived and joined the drinking
at the invitation of Ricardo Aboga.

“Later, at past 8:30 P.M., Reynaldo Pantinople and Emiterio Roquid arrived and ordered beer from the wife of Ricardo
Aboga.  But, they were later invited by
the latter to join the group which they did.

“While thus drinking, an argument arose between Roquid and accused Navarra
regarding the card game ‘pusoy‘ with Roquid asking accused Navarra why
the latter quarelled with his brother. 
Accused Navarra asked that it be
forgotten.  But Pantinople stood, remarking why it should be forgotten, then boxed
accused Navarra at the forehead, causing the latter to
fall from his chair.

“At this, accused Navarra stood, then got
a knife and ran after Pantinople towards the
outside.

“After a while, accused Navarra, still
with his knife, returned to the store saying he did not catch up with Pantinople; and he then asked Roquid, who was left there, why his Compadre Pantinople boxed him, to
which Roquid answered that Pantinople is like that whenever he is drunk.

“Then, they continued drinking.  But after a while,
accused Navarra borrowed P5.00 from Ricardo Aboga, who instead gave P10.00, as he was going to some
place.

“After accused Navarra left, Pantinople arrived with a scythe.  Roquid told him that accused Navarra already left.

“At this, Roquid asked Pantinople to go home with him.  They went to
the house of Pantinople.

“It was at this time, when accused Wilbur Aboga, who was at the store of his mother from 6:30 P.M.
that evening on August 21, 1979 helping her, asked the permission of his mother
to sleep inside the room.

“Then accused Navarra
and his brother ‘Little Boy’ also known as ‘Boy Ilongo‘ arrived asking for the house of Pantinople.  Luis Revero, who was the neighbor of Pantinople and who was pointed to by an old man,
accompanied the Navarras to the house of Pantinople.

“It turned out that upon the arrival of Roquid, and Pantinople at the
latter’s house situated in the compound of the Diliman
Preparatory School, Don Mariano Marcos Ave., Quezon
City, which is just 500 meters away from the store of
Ricardo Aboga, they rested at the open balcony of
Pantinople’s house and slept there. 
Luzviminda, the wife of Pantinople, slept inside the house.

“At about 12:00 midnight, a thud was suddenly heard by Pantinople.  He woke up and saw accused: 
Navarra alias Boy Britanico, Wilbur Aboga, and
Little Boy alias ‘Boy Ilongo‘, with bolos in
their hands.

“Accused Little Boy alias ‘Boy Ilongo‘ hacked Pantinople. 
But he was not hit as he was able to enter the room of his house. 
But he was able to see, at a distance of one (1) arm length away, the
said three (3) accused hacking Roquid several times
with their bolos while the latter was lying down at the porch.

“This was also seen by Luzviminda, wife of
Pantinople, at a distance of two (2) arm lengths
away.  For, when her husband entered their house, she asked him
what happened.  However, instead of answering, her husband leaped
out of the house thru the window.  She then looked outside at
the porch and there saw the three (3) accused hacking Roquid who was lying down.

“At this, Pantinople asked help from his
neighbors, and they brought Roquid to the Hospital Ng
Bagong Lipunan at Quezon City where he died on arrival on August 22, 1979, per
his certificate of death (Exh. “A”).

“At the request of Roquid’s sister (Exh. “E”),
Major Desiderio A. Moraleda,
Chief, Medico-Legal Branch of the PC Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City, conducted an
autopsy on the cadaver of Roquid, issuing as a result
thereof a Medico-Legal Necropsy Report on October 2, 1979, with the following
postmortem findings:

“‘Fairly developed, fairly nourished male cadaver in the rigor
mortis with postmortem lividity over the dependent
portions of the body.  Conjunctivae, lips and nailbeds are pale.  Stomach is 1/3 full of
partially digested food particles.

HEAD,
TRUNK AND EXTREMITIES:

‘1).   Hacked wound, frontal region, measuring 9 x 2.5
cm., crossing the anterior midline, 3.5 cm. right and 5.5 cm. left.

‘2).   Abrasion, frontal region, measuring 2 x 1 cm., 3.5 cm. right of the anterior midline.

‘3).   Hacked wound, right zygomatic extending to the right cheek, measuring 9.5 x 1.3
cm., 8.5 cm. from the anterior midline.

‘4).   Hacked wound, right maxillary extending to the
right ear, measuring 15 x 3 cm., 9 cm. from the anterior midline.

‘5).   Hacked wound, occipital region, measuring 7.5 x
1.5 cm., 9 cm. left of the posterior midline.

‘6).   Hacked wound, occipital region, measuring 8 x 1
cm., crossing the posterior midline, 1.5 cm. right and 6.5 cm. left.

‘7).   Incised wound, right lateral aspect of the neck,
measuring 9.5 x 0.3 cm., 6 cm. from the anterior midline.

‘8).   Incised wound, right lateral aspect of the neck,
measuring 8.5 x 0.2 cm. 9 cm. from the anterior midline.

‘9).   Linear abrasion, right infrascapular region, measuring 9.2 cm. long, 7 cm. from the
posterior midline.

‘10). Abrasion, proximal 3rd of the right arm, measuring 6 x 0.8
cm., 6 cm. medial to its posterior midline.

‘11). Hacked wound, distal 3rd of the right arm, measuring 15 x 3
cm. medial to its posterior midline.

‘12). Hacked wound, left elbow, measuring 2.7 x 0.8 cm., 2 cm.
lateral to its posterior midline.

‘13). Lacerated wound, left elbow, measuring 3.5 x 1 cm., 2 cm.
medial to its posterior midline.

‘14). Incised wound, middle 3rd of the right forearm, measuring 2 x
0.5 cm. along its posterior midline.

‘15). Incised wound, dorsum of the right hand, measuring 0.8 x 0.7
cm., 5.5 cm. lateral to its posterior midline.

‘16). Hacked wound, dorsum of the right hand, measuring 9 x 2.5 cm.,
2.5 cm. medial to its posterior midline.

‘17). Hacked wound, dorsum of the right hand, measuring 2 x 0.6 cm.,
4 cm. medial to its posterior midline.

‘18). Hacked wound, right ring finger, measuring 6.5 x 1 cm.

‘19). Hacked wound, palmar aspect of the
left hand, measuring 13.5 x 1.5 cm., bisecting its anterior midline.

‘20). Incised wound, thenar surface of the left thumb, measuring 4 x 2
cm.

‘21). Incised wound, palmar aspect of the
left hand, measuring 1.5 x 0.1 cm., 3 cm. lateral to its anterior midline.

‘22). Hacked wound, proximal phalange of the right middle finger,
measuring 2 x 1.5 cm.

‘23). Lacerated wound, middle 3rd of the right leg, measuring 3.2 x
0.6 cm. along its anterior midline.

‘24). Linear abrasion, distal 3rd of the left leg, measuring 6 x 0.3
cm., 4 cm. medial to its anterior midline.

‘25). Incised wound, distal 3rd of the left leg, measuring 2.5 x 0.5
cm., 4 cm. medial to its anterior midline.

‘26). Incised wound, dorsum of the left foot, measuring 3.5 x 0.1
cm., 9 cm. medial to its anterior midline.

‘The left cerebral hemisphere is lacerated.

‘The frontal, occipital bones, distal phalange of the left and right
middle finger, metacarpal of the right ring finger are fractured, with
amputation of the left thumb.  (Exhs. “C” and “C-1”)’

which injuries are also indicated in the
sketches (Exhs. “D” to
“D-13”).  According to said Necropsy report, the cause of
death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of
multiple injuries of the head, trunk and extremities.”

Appellant Aboga raised the following
assignment of errors in this appeal:

I

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE ALLEGED POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION MADE BY THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES;

II

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT WILBUR ABOGA GUILTY AS CHARGED MERELY BECAUSE HIS EVIDENCE IS
WEAK.

The two assigned errors center on the issue of whether or not the
trial court erred in determining the value and credibility of the evidence
presented.

We have carefully studied the records of this case and we find no
reason to deviate from the well-settled rule that the findings of fact of the
trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded the
highest respect by the appellate court in view of its privilege of examining the
demeanor of the witnesses as they testify (People v. Ramilo, G.R. No.
52230, Dec. 15, 1986; People v. Natipravat, G.R. No. 69876, Nov. 13,
1986; and People v. Adones, G.R. No. 63453, Sept. 24,
1986).

The appellant contends that the spouses Pantinople could not have made a positive identification on
him, as one of the attackers of the deceased Roquid,
because at the time of the assault, they (the Pantinoples) had just awakened from sleep and it was very
dark, there being no electricity in the area nor was the moon out that
night.

The contention is without merit.

Both Reynaldo Pantinople and Roquid were then sleeping on the balcony of the former’s house.  When the assault was
committed, Reynaldo woke up to see the appellant together with Navarra alias Boy Britanico and Little Boy alias “Boy Ilongo” with bolos in their hands.  Reynaldo
was able to run inside the house but not before he saw the three accused
hacking Roquid.  He could not have erred
in his identification as he was only one arm length away.  (TSN., February 25, 1980, p. 6).

Although, he had just awakened from sleep, Reynaldo recognized the
assailants immediately.  He saw that they were carrying bolos and
he then instinctively decided to enter the house right away before he could be
mortally wounded.

Likewise, Reynaldo’s wife, Luzviminda was able to identify the assailants when Reynaldo
rushed inside the house.

The appellant questions the credibility of the testimony of
Luzviminda due to its alleged “infirmity,
inconsistency, unreliability and absurdity”.  He said that, at one
time, Luzviminda declared:

“Q  –  Will you
please state briefly what you saw and witnessed?

“A  –  While I
was resting at our porch, I heard a commotion.

“Q – Now, when you heard a commotion, what did you do, if you have
done anything?

“A  –  I saw my
husband enter our house and I asked him what happen(ed).  Instead
of answering me, I saw that he immediately leap(ed) and from our porch I look
and saw men holding bolo(es).  What I did was to lean against our door.’
(t.s.n., p. 3, hearing of November 6, 1979)

xxx

xxx

xxx

“Q – And you also stated that you were surprised when your husband
entered your house and leaped through the window outside your
house?

“A  –  Yes,
sir.

“Q  –  And that
your husband entered the house and closed the door behind him, is that
right?

“A – No, Sir.  I was
the one who closed and leaned my body against the door.’ (t.s.n., p. 6, Ibid);’” (Rollo, p. 32)

Accordingly, the appellant contends that Luzviminda could not possibly have seen the hacking
incident.  It is clear from the records that Luzviminda saw the assailants as she was only two arms
length away and although there was no electricity, there was a
lighted “gacera” or wick lamp
inside the house when Luzviminda was sleeping (t.s.n., February 25, 1980, p.
26).

We agree with the following observations of the Solicitor
General:

“Moreover, appellant Wilbur Aboga was long
known to the Pantinoples, he being a long time
neighbors of theirs.  The two other accused — the Navarra brothers — were also known to the Pantinoples for about a year already prior to Roquid’s killing; the Navarra
brothers were then living with the appellant in the same house (tsn, February 25,
1980, pp. 9-11).  Consequently, his identification, as
well as that of the Navarra brothers, was prompt and
immediate, for it is a fact that when one meets a person known to him,
identification takes place at first sight.

“Also, it should be noted that immediately after the killing of
Roquid, when Reynaldo Pantinople and his wife Luzviminda
were still too shaken to concoct a story falsely incriminating the appellant and
his two co-accused, the former positively and promptly stated to the authorities
that appellant Wilbur Aboga and his two co-accused —
the Navarra brothers Rodolfo and Little Boy — hacked
to death Emiterio Roquid
(tsn, Feb. 25, 1980, pp. 15-16; see also pp. 21-22,
record).

“Aside from the positive identification of the appellant and his two co-accused, the existence of sufficient motive on the
part of the appellant and his two co-accused was also established. 
Aboga and his two
co-accused were mad at Pantinople and Roquid who appeared to have gotten the upper hand in their
verbal altercation, and with Pantinople boxing Rodolfo
Navarra, during their drinking spree that fateful
night.

“On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that
these witnesses had ulterior motive to testify falsely against the appellant or
falsely implicate him if he was not involved at all in the killing. 
On the contrary, appellant Aboga even admitted
that he had no personal differences with the Pantinoples and that they were in
fact friends.  In the absence of such a contrary evidence, the only
logical conclusion is that no such improper motive existed and their testimony
are worthy of full faith and credit (People v. Angeles, 92 SCRA
432).”

The defense interposed an alibi through the testimonies of the
accused Wilbur Aboga and his father, Richard Aboga that the accused was sleeping at their house at the
time of the incident.

Such a defense is unavailing.  The positive
identification of the accused being decisive, the defense of alibi cannot assume
importance in the case at bar.  (See People v. Ramilo,
supra; People v. Ibal, G.R. Nos. 66010-12, July 13, 1986;
People v. Bihasa, 130 SCRA 62; People v. Cabanit, 139 SCRA 94;
People v. Pampanga, 139 SCRA 339; People v. Sarol, 139 SCRA
125; People v. Garcia, 141 SCRA 336; People v. De las Pinas, 141 SCRA 379; and People v.
Valentino, 141 SCRA 397).

It was not physically impossible for the accused to be at the
house of Pantinople where the hacking incident
occurred as the said house is merely 500 meters away from their store.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the indemnity to be paid is increased to THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P30,000.00).

SO
ORDERED.

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