PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JIMMY TAMBA, ROBERTO DIONSON, GERONDIO DESTOR AND CARLOS DOLOR, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal brought by the accused Carlos Dolor and Gerondio Destor from the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City, Branch
XV, finding them and a Jimmy Tamba guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing each one of them to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of
the victim Celso Elevencionado the amount of P12,000.00 and to pay the costs.

The amended information filed against the accused alleged:

“That on or about April 22, 1973, in
the afternoon, at Sitio Mao, Barrio Kauran, Municipality of Ampatuan,
Province of Maguindanao, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this HONORABLE COURT, said accused armed with a deadly bladed
weapon, a long knife, and with the intent to kill, conspiring, confederating and
helping each other, did then and there, with treachery and evident
premeditation, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and stab one CELSO ELEVENCIONADO, hitting him fatally with
mortal wounds in different parts of his body which directly caused his death on
the spot.

“CONTRARY TO
LAW.”

The trial court’s findings of the indisputable or admitted facts
are as follows:

xxx

xxx

xxx

“x x x [T]hat on
or about April 22, 1973 at Lower Mao, a drinking tuba party was held at the
house of Leoncio Dolor and those who were present
were:  Celso Elevencionado, Tony, Gaudincio
Deemoy, Monoy, Mansueto, Carlos Dolor, Gerondio
Destor, Ricarido Deemoy, Jimmy Tamba, Roberto Dionson and Enofrio Deemoy.  That at about 4:00 o’clock in the
afternoon, an incident took place which resulted in the death of the victim
Celso Elevencionado who
suffered wounds or injuries as follows:  ‘stab wounds at the level
of 11th rib lateral to mid line going front and inward penetrating
stomach with contents coming out from wound entrance about 3 inches long; stab
wound 2/3 inches long and 3 inches deep towards wound 1 going upward; 4 small
lacerated wounds on the forearm; small superficial lacerated wounds level of
10th rib mid auxillary line’.  That
accused Jimmy Tamba admitted sole responsibility in
the killing of the victim Celso Elevencionado in self defense.”

Thereafter, the trial court went on to establish the guilt beyond
reasonable doubt of the accused based on the prosecution evidence as
follows:

xxx

xxx

xxx

“x x x [T]hat
accused Gerondio Destor,
Carlos Dolor and Roberto Dionson were already waiting
for 2 1/2 to 3 hours at the mitan-ag tree just after
the victim Celso Elevencionado left the place of the drinking spree for home
to rest.  At more or less 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same
day, when Celso Elevencionado was on his way to the place where his carabaos were being pastured by Nilo Elevencionado and his sister
Darlyn Cabanlit, formerly
Elevencionado, after waking up from his afternoon rest
saw the three accused, namely:  Carlos Dolor, Gerondio Destor and Roberto Dionson.  Celso Elevencionado, after sensing the bad intention of the three
accused immediately raised his hands and shirt in surrender saying: 
‘I will not fight you’ and that he was unarmed.  Despite
Celso Elevencionado’s sign
of surrender, the three accused, namely:  Carlos Dolor, Gerondio Destor and Roberto Dionson suddenly and without any provocation helped one
another in boxing and mauling the victim Celso Elevencionado.  The three accused, not
satisfied with their superiority in number still called for Jimmy Tamba who was at that time still drinking tuba at Leoncio Dolor’s place and who, because of ascendancy of
Carlos Dolor over Jimmy Tamba, the latter having
worked with him for five (5) years, without thinking, assaulted, attacked and by
the aid of the three, namely:  Carlos Dolor and Gerondio Destor who held both arms
of Celso Elevencionado and
Roberto Dionson who held Celso’s feet which caused him to fall with face towards the
earth, Jimmy Tamba stabbed Celso Elevencionado several times
on the different parts of his body which caused his death.  x x x.”

The lower court rendered its decision against Jimmy Tamba and herein appellants, Carlos Dolor and Gerondio Destor, as Roberto Dionson remained at large.

The accused, Jimmy Tamba, withdrew his
appeal.

Appellants Dolor and Destor raised the
following assignments of errors in this appeal:

1. The Lower Court erred in its findings that there was conspiracy
   between the accused resulting to the death of the deceased.

2. The Lower Court erred in denying the defense of Alibi.
3. The facts of the case do not warrant the conviction of the
   accused.

4. The guilt of the accused was not proved beyond reasonable
   doubt.

The appellants contend that, contrary to the finding of the lower
court, there was no conspiracy among the accused to kill Celso Elevencionado. 
They relied heavily on the testimony of their co-accused Jimmy Tamba who stated that the three persons: 
Roberto Dionson, Gerondio Destor and Carlos Dolor
had no participation in the killing of Elevencionado
(tns., February 11,
1985, p. 35).  Such statement, they allege, gives
credence to their defense of alibi.  Furthermore, they put up the
defense that they had no motive for killing the
deceased.

We find no reason to depart from the lower court’s appreciation of
the evidence presented which established conspiracy.  The
appellants were positively identified by the victim’s children namely: 
Nida, Nilo and Darlyn Elevencionado as among
those who acted in concert against their father.  Therefore, Tamba’s testimony exculpating them from the misdeed, their
defense of alibi and their alleged lack of motive cannot overcome the evidence
on record clearly establishing the identities of the appellants as two of the
assailants of Elevencionado.  (See People v. Ramilo, G.R. No. 52230,
Dec. 15, 1986; and People v. Ibal, G.R. Nos. 66010-12,
July 31, 1986).

The appellants question the application of the rule that if the
only defense of the accused is alibi then this defense is weak if they are
positively identified.  They state that it should not be applied
when, aside from alibi, the accused has also other defenses as in the case at
bar (Appellants’ brief, p. 8).  This contention is not
meritorious.

The accused Dolor claimed that while it is true that he attended
the drinking spree at Leoncio Dolor’s house, he left
the place at about 2:00 to 2:30
o’clock in the afternoon and went directly home to Kauran.  On the other hand, the accused Destor who incidentally did not take the witness stand, relied only on the claims of Roberto Barometro, accused Tamba, and
Dolor to prove his non-participation and the allegation that he was in his farm
planting corn (Lower Court Decision, p. 41).

As quoted in the case of People v. Ramilo, supra, from the case of People v.
Lumantas (28 SCRA 765):

“Alibi is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an
accused (People v. De la Cruz, 76 Phil. 701).  To establish it, the
accused must show that he was at some other place for such a period of time that
it was impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was
committed at the time of its commission (U.S. v. Oxiles, 20 Phil. 587; People v. Palomos, 49 Phil. 601; People v. Resabal, 50 Phil. 780). x x x.”

The lower court in this case aptly pointed out:

xxx    xxx      
xxx

“It will be noted from the testimony of Carlos Dolor that he is a
resident of Kauran which is more or less 2 kilometers
to Lower Mao which distance can be easily traversed by walking considering that
in his defense he went home between 2:00 to 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon and
the incident took place at about 4:00 o’clock on the same afternoon. 
On the part of Gerondio Destor, the place where he went to after asking permission
from Celso Elevencionado was
in his farm to plant corn and the distance of his farm is so near that it can
even be seen from the place where the drinking spree was held, at the house of
Leoncio Dolor.  Considering the distance,
the proximity of the places where the accused Carlos Dolor and Gerondio Destor were to the scene
of the crime does not preclude the possibility that they were at the place of
the crime at the time when it was committed.  Therefore the defense
cannot be acceptable because the accused can still be in the place at the time
of the incident.  That it is not so far located at a distance that
it was well-nigh impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime. 
Alibi is too weak to prevail over the positive identification by the
prosecution witnesses as authors of the crime.  There is no ground
to suspect that the three eye witnesses are actuated by sinister or ulterior
motives in falsifying the truth knowing fully well that one of the accused in
the person of Carlos Dolor was the compare of their father, the late
Celso Elevencionado. 
We can only conclude that their intention is solely to bring all those
who participated in the killing of their father before the bar of justice.”

The appellants further contend that they had no motive for killing
Elevencionado.

As held in the case of People v. Cabanit (139 SCRA
94):

“Proof to establish motive for the killing of the victims in this
case is of little significance because as stated in People v. Lumantas,
28 SCRA 764, even lack of motile for committing the crime does not preclude
conviction when the crime and the participation of the accused therein are
definitely shown.”

The testimony of the victim’s son, Nilo
Elevencionado shows there was bad blood between his
father and Gerondio Destor,
who felt insulted when Nilo’s father abruptly rejected
an offer to buy his plow as the price was too cheap.

At any rate, the viciousness of the attack and the fact that three
of the accused waited for about three hours in some sort of ambush renders
unnecessary the need to prove their motive.

Conspiracy is evident from the manner the accused committed the
crime.  The appellants held the victim’s arms while Tamba stabbed the victim repeatedly.  Each of
the offenders performed with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a
common purpose or design (People v. Mahusay, 138 SCRA 452).

Where there is conspiracy, a showing as to who inflicted the fatal
blow is not required.  As conspirators, the appellants would still
be equally responsible for the acts of their co-conspirators.  In
fact, the appellants were the ones who called on Tamba
(the person who stabbed the victim) to join them while mauling Elevencionado.

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.