PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSELITO VILLALOBOS AND ROBERTO VILLALOBOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the decision* dated March 29, 1985, of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch XXVI, Iloilo City in Criminal Case No. 14182,
finding accused Joselito Villalobos and Roberto Villalobos guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder defined and penalized under Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, sentencing them both “to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify jointly and severally the
heirs of the deceased Eduardo Alarba, the sum of P30,000.00 for his death and
P7,000.00 for and as actual damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, together with all the necessary penalties provided for by law and to
pay the costs.”

The complaint for murder was filed against Joselito, Roberto and
Victorino, all surnamed Villalobos before the Municipal Circuit Court of
Passi-San Enrique, Iloilo. After
conducting the requisite preliminary investigation, said court issued the
corresponding warrant of arrest against the accused.

Of the three accused, only Joselito and Roberto were
arrested. Victorino remained at large
and the case with respect to Joselito and Roberto only was transmitted to the
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City for further proceedings. (Rollo, p. 13)

Both accused were charged with murder in an information filed by
the Provincial Fiscal which reads:

“The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses JOSELITO VILLALOBOS
and ROBERTO VILLALOBOS of the crime of MURDER, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 31st day of October, 1981, in the
municipality of San Enrique, Province of Iloilo, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this court, the above-named accused, armed with homemade gun or
“pugakhang” together with one Victorino Villalobos who is still at
large, conspiring, confederating and helping each other, with treachery,
evident premeditation, with deliberate intent and a decided purpose to kill,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot Eduardo Alarba
with the gun with which they were provided at a time thereby inflicting upon
said Eduardo Alarba gunshot wounds on his body which caused his immediate
death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Upon arraignment, both accused entered a plea of not guilty and
trial on the merits ensued.

As summarized by the Solicitor General, the facts of this case
are as follows:

“Around seven o’clock in the evening of October 31, 1981 at
Barangay Cubay, San Enrique, Iloilo, Norberto dela Cruz who just came from
Barangay Garitas after visiting his brother-in-law heard and saw a flash of
gunfire some thirty meters away from the road where he was walking (p. 2, tsn,
March 29, 1982). Upon seeing three
persons emerging from the site of the gunfire, Norberto hid himself behind the
bushes along the road. When the three
persons came near the place where he was, he was able to recognize Victorino
Villalobos who was holding a long firearm and accused-appellant Roberto
Villalobos at a distance of one and a half meters (p. 3, tsn, ibid). He also saw two carabaos at the scene of the
gunfire and noted that the house of the victim Eduardo Alarba is located just
fifty meters away from the crime site (p. 4 tsn, March 29, 1982).

“On that same occasion, Alejandro Alagos was also in the same
vicinity on his way home after attending to the cattle of his aunt in Barangay
Hilonoc. Like Norberto, he also heard
and saw the flash of gunfire forty meters away (p. 7, tsn, Feb. 24, 1982). He sought cover for a while and later on
continued his way towards the direction of the gunfire. There, he met the three persons seen by
Norberto but he was only able to recognize Victorino Villalobos who was
carrying a firearm (ibid). Alejandro
asked Victorino what the shot was all about but the latter did not answer (p.
8, tsn, ibid). Instead, Victorino
together with his two companions hurriedly left (p. 9, tsn, ibid).

“In the evening of the incident in question (prior to the
shooting), Openiano Berona, a neighbor of the victim Eduardo Alarba, saw
accused-appellant Joselito Villalobos go to the store of the Alarbas to buy
cigarettes. He was surprised why
Joselito was there when his house was a kilometer away. He also saw two companions of Joselito a few
meters away but whom he could not recognize (pp. 33-44, tsn, April 26, 1982).

“After Joselito had left, the deceased Eduardo Alarba who was
inside the house where the store was located instructed his wife Evangelina to
prepare their supper. After eating with
his wife and children, the deceased told his wife to close the store and then
he went towards the field to attend to his carabaos (pp. 2-3, tsn, June 16,
1982). Shortly after Eduardo had left,
a gun explosion coming from the direction of the creek was heard. Evangelina did not mind it as she was busy
attending to her children until she fell asleep. (p. 3, tsn, ibid).

“The following morning, Josefino Alio, uncle of Evangelina
came to their house and told her that there was a dead man found near the creek
some fifty meters away from their house. Evangelina together with her uncle hurriedly went to the place and
there, she saw the lifeless body of her husband Eduardo riddled with bullets
lying prostrate on the ground (p. 3, tsn, June 16, 1982).

“Policemen together with Dr. Leonardo Deza, Rural Health
Physician of San Enrique went to the crime site and conducted an
investigation. Dr. Deza autopsied the
body of the victim and found multiple gunshot wounds which he indicated in his
autopsy report (Exh. “A”) as follows:

‘3. Gunshot wound
located 1 inch below the superior border of the left scapula 2 inches from the
vertebral column measuring 1.5 x 1.5 cm. in diameter perforating the skin,
muscle, bone then penetrating the superior portion of the left lung.

‘4. Gunshot wound
located at the left latero-posterior portion of the thoracic re­gion at the
11th rib measuring 1.5 x 1.5 cm. in diameter penetrating the skin, muscle, 11th
rib then lodging at the internal portion of the posterior thoracic cavity.

‘5. Gunshot wound
located at the middle portion of the left arm medial side measuring 1.5 x 1.5
cm. in diameter. No wound of exit.

‘6. Gunshot wound
located 1 inch below the right scapula 5 inches from the vertebral column
measuring 1.5 x 1.5 cm. in diameter. No
exit wound at the thoracic cavity.

‘7. Gunshot wound
located at the level of the 5th intercostal space about 4 inches from the
vertebral column measuring 1.5 x 1.5 cm. perforating the posterior thoracic
wall penetrating the superior portion of the right lung.’ (pp. 2-3, Decision)

“The police, acting on leads that accused appel­lant Joselito
Villalobos went to the store of Eduardo Alarba in the evening of October 31,
1981, investigated him (to) verify(ing) the truth of his presence at the
store. Joselito however denied having
gone to the store that evening and so the police brought him to the store where
he was positively identified by Evangelina Alarba and Openiano Beronio as the
person who bought cigarettes from the former some hours before the shooting
incident (p. 21, tsn, Aug. 16, 1982). Thereafter, accused-appellant Joselito was taken to the municipal
building where upon further investigation he broke down and pointed to
accused-appellant Roberto Villalobos and Victorino Villalobos as his companions
in the killing of Eduardo Alarba (pp. 20-22, tsn, Aug. 16, 1982).

“The police then went to look for Roberto and Victorino. However, they were only able to pick up
accused-appellant Roberto in the latter’s house. When confronted, accused-appellant Roberto Villalobos told the
police that the firearm they had used in the killing of Eduardo Alarba was
brought by them to the house of Severino Petrola (p. 22, tsn, Aug. 16,
1982). The police accompanied by
Roberto and Joselito then proceeded to the house of Petrola and recovered the
firearm (p. 23, tsn, Aug. 16, 1982).

As found by the trial court –

‘The policemen brought Roberto and Joselito to the house of
Severino Petrola, where they recovered the fatal gun, a 12-gauge
“pugakang” (Exh. “E”). Severino Petrola
informed the policemen that Joselito and Roberto came to his house in the
evening of October 31, 1981 at around 9:30 o’clock and handed to him the said
firearm requesting him to hold the same in the meantime that they wash
themselves at the well nearby. The two
spent the night in the house of Petrola. Early the next morning, Petrola went out to look for some coconuts and
when he returned, Joselito and Roberto were no longer in the house leaving
behind the subject firearm. Petrola
gave a written statement which he subscribed and swore to before Judge Mariano
Basa of San Enrique (Exh. “D”).’

“Prior to the killing, the deceased Eduardo Alarba had an
altercation with Victorino Villalobos in connection with the loss of his
plow. The victim left his plow in the
canefield and the same got lost when Victorino passed by. The victim hence suspected Victorino to have
taken his plow and this suspicion reached Victorino who, thereupon, confronted
Eduardo saying that he would kill him someday (p. 4, tsn, June 16, 1982).

“Likewise, on October 24, 1981, a near-fight occurred between
the victim Eduardo Alarba and accused?appellant Joselito and Roberto
Villalobos. Eduardo drew his butcher’s
knife and pointed the same to Roberto and Joselito who both ran away saying
that their path would meet someday (p. 5, tsn, June 16,1982).

“On the basis of the foregoing facts, an information for
murder was filed against Joselito, Roberto and Victorino, all surnamed
Villalobos. Because Victorino could not
be arrested and had remained at large, the case proceeded only with respect to
the other two accused-appellants. While
testifying in the witness stand, Roberto and Joselito repudiated what they
admitted to the police. Instead, they
invoke alibi as a defense.

“The trial court however did not believe their alibi and
instead convicted accused-appellants of the (crime) charge(d).”

Accused-appellants raised the following assignment of errors:

“(1) THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN HOLDING BOTH ACCUSED KILLED EDUARDO ALARBA;

“(2) THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DECEASED WAS KILLED WITH TREACHERY.”

Admittedly, in the case at bar, there were no eyewitnesses to the
shooting incident. Neither was there
any direct evidence presented during the trial and the judgment of conviction
of the trial court is predicated mainly on circumstantial evidence.

But the trial court found that the combination of facts and
circumstances obtaining in this case, duly proven by evidence and testified to
by witnesses who have no improper motive to testify falsely, points to the
complicity of the accused Joselito Villalobos and Roberto Villalobos in the
killing of the deceased.

Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides the requisites
to warrant conviction based on circumstantial evidence, to wit:

“Sec. 5. 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 a reasonable doubt.”

In determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to
support a conviction, this Court laid down the rule that “each case is to
be determined on its own peculiar circumstances and all of the facts and
circumstances are to be considered together as a whole, and when so considered,
may be sufficient to support a conviction, although one or more of the facts
taken separately would not be sufficient for this purpose.” (People v.
Jara, 144 SCRA 516 [1986]).

A careful review of the records shows the series of events as
established by the direct and positive testimonies of prosecu­tion witnesses
and other evidence that culminated in the killing of the deceased. They are: (1) that prior to the incident, the deceased was twice involved in a
near fatal confrontation with the accused; (2) that in the evening of October
31, 1981, accused Joselito went to the store of the deceased ostensibly to buy
cigarettes when he could have made the purchase from other stores nearer to the
residence of said accused; (3) that in the same evening the deceased went down
to fetch his carabaos; (4) that shortly thereafter, a shot was heard in the
direction of the creek where the carabaos were; (5) that at about the same
time, the shot was heard by two witnesses Alejandro Alagos and Norberto de la
Cruz who came from opposite directions; (6) that at the site of the gunfire,
both saw the three accused emerge, with Victorino holding a gun; (7) that they
positively identified the accused and could not have been mistaken as Alagos
knew Victorino for ten years while Norberto de la Cruz knew Victorino and
Roberto for eight years; (8) that de la Cruz saw the three accused from a
distance of one meter and a half while Alagos saw them from a distance of three
meters; (9) that Alagos even asked Victorino what the shot was all about but
the latter hurried away; (10) that the next morning, the body of the deceased
was found riddled with bullets near the creek, 50 meters away from his house in
the vicinity of the spot where the gunfiring occurred the night before; and
(11) that the fatal gun was recovered from the house of Petrola, the place
pointed to the police by accused Roberto, who unwittingly confirmed the
testimony of Petrola that the weapon in question was handed to him by the two
accused on the night of the incident.

Undoubtedly, the requirements for circumstantial evidence to
sustain a conviction are present in this case. Verily, these circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one
fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the guilt of the accused. Mere denials of the accused as to their
participation in the crime are only self serving, negative evidence which
cannot out-weigh circumstantial evidence clearly establishing their active
participation in the crime (People v. Jara, supra).

Nonetheless, appellants assail before this Court the credibility
of the prosecution witnesses and in effect would have this Court give more
weight to the testimonies of the witnesses for the defense.

The oft-repeated aphorism that the appellate court will not
disturb the factual findings of the trial court especially as to credibility of
witnesses, as the latter is in a better position to decide said question,
having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed their demeanor and
manner of testifying during the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain
facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of
the case (People vs. Adones, 144 SCRA 364 [1986]; People vs. Patog, 144 SCRA
429 [1986]; People vs. Veloso, 148 SCRA 60 [1987]; People vs. Acelajado, 148
SCRA 142 [1987]; People vs. Alcid, 135 SCRA 280 [1985]; People vs. Lopez, 132
SCRA 188 [1984]) deserves reiteration.

In assailing the veracity of the testimony of the victim’s widow,
appellants’ main objection is her alleged failure to establish the motive of
Joselito and Roberto Villalobos to kill Eduardo Alarba. They pointed out that even assuming there
was in fact a misunderstanding between the victim and Victorino, such was
purely personal to Victorino himself and does not extend to his nephews
Joselito and Roberto.

From the clear testimony of the victim’s wife, it was established
that while the initial argument was between the victim and Victorino Villalobos
when the former suspected the latter of having taken his plow which resulted in
confrontation between them where Victorino stated that he will kill the victim
Eduardo someday, the incident was repeated on October 4, 1981 where the
deceased again figured in a near fight, this time with Victorino’s nephews,
appellants Joselito and Roberto, who reportedly ran away when the victim drew
his butcher’s knife but left a warning that “someday our path will meet.”

Taken as a whole, the two successive incidents indubitably show
that all the three accused were impelled by the same motive and/or resentment
against Eduardo Alarba. In fact, in a
similar case, this Court took cognizance of motive of the accused in committing
the crime involving a matter of honor, sufficient to establish the direct
participation of the accused. Thus:

“By contrast, the motive of the Tamayos cannot be lightly
brushed aside as it involved a matter of honor. Orlando took umbrage at the imputation that he had something to
do with the theft of Ruben’s kitchen stove. Carlos, the father was also angry over the suspicion that had been cast
upon his son and, indeed, uttered an ominous warning to Ruben’s wife. While it would have been unnatural for the
prosecution witnesses to implicate the Tamayos if in fact they were not guilty,
it was, on the other hand, quite natural for the Tamayos to be resentful over
the insinuation that Orlando had something to do with the theft of Ruben
Estanislao’s kitchen stove. It is
easier to accept that the Tamayos’ ire toward the victim manifested itself in
their direct participation in the stabbing by Guardo of Ruben Estanislao as the
object of their common wrath.” (People vs. Guardo, et al., 156 SCRA 152
[1987]).

In any event, even in the absence of a known motive, the
time-honored rule is that motive is not essential to convict when there is no
doubt as to the identity of the culprit (People vs. Pacada, Jr., 142 SCRA 428
[1986]; People v. Perante, Jr., 143 SCRA 56 [1986]). Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and
the participation of the accused therein are definitely shown (People v.
Abigan, 144 SCRA 132 [1986]); that is, there is no doubt as to the identities of the
perpetrators of the crime (People v. Tan, Jr., 145 SCRA 615 [1986]).

Similarly, the contention of accused-appellant that the alleged
failure of the widow Evangelina to immediately report the above incident to the
authorities is an indication that they did not actually happen, is without
merit. It is but natural for the
victim’s wife not to report the incidents that took place prior to the death of
her husband in order to prevent the further escalation of the trouble between
her husband and the accused-­appellants and due to her apprehension about
getting involved in a criminal case (People v. Pacabes, 137 SCRA 158 [1985]).

Appellants laid much stress on the fact that the testimony of the
victim’s widow and so with the testimonies of the other defense witnesses, were never corroborated.

It has already been settled by this Court that there is no law
which requires that the testimony of a single witness has to be corroborated
except where expressly mandated. In
determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed,
not numbered. In fact, the testimony of
a single witness, if credible and positive is sufficient to convict (People v.
Canada, 144 SCRA 121 [1986]; People v. Luces, 125 SCRA 813 [1983]; People v.
Demeterio, 124 SCRA 914 [1983]; and People v. Romero, 119 SCRA 234 [1982]).

The fact that the principal witness is the victim’s wife even
lends more credence to her testimony as her natural interest in securing the
conviction of the guilty would deter her from implicating persons other than
the culprits for otherwise the latter would thereby gain immunity (People v.
Canada, supra; People v. Radomes, 141 SCRA 548 [1986]; People v.
Jabequero, 125 SCRA 144 [1983]; People v. Alcantara, 33 SCRA 812 [1970]).

Conversely, the negative testimonies of the appellants denying
the said incidents cannot prevail over the positive straight­forward and candid
testimony of the wife of the deceased. As ruled by this Court, the defense of denial is inherently weak
especially when wanting in material corroboration (People v. Balbuena, 129 SCRA
12 [1984]). Categorical declarations of
wit­nesses for the prosecution on the details of the crime are more credible
than denials and uncorroborated alibi interposed by the two co-accused (People
v. Tan, Jr., 145 SCRA 614 [1986]).

For the same reason, the objections of accused-appellants to the
testimonies of Norberto de la Cruz and Alejandro Alagos do not deserve serious
consideration. It was unrefuted that
the said witnesses as aforestated knew the appellants for a long time, eight
(8) years for de la Cruz and ten (10) years for Alagos, so that it is highly
improbable that they would have been mistaken in their identification from a
distance of one meter and a half, and three meters, respectively, not to
mention the fact that Alagos even asked Victorino what the shot was all about.

The fact that Petrola, another witness, never asked questions
about the gun when handed to him does not prove that his statements were
coached and rehearsed. The circumstance
was explained by the fact that Joselito who gave him the gun was ac­companied
by Roberto who knew Petrola ever since he reached the age of reason (TSN,
Hearing of June 20, 1983, p. 15). More
than that, it was Roberto who disclosed to the policemen the house of Petrola
as the place where they brought the fatal gun. On reaching the said house, the gun was indeed recovered therefrom
(Rollo, p. 13).

On the other hand, the accused interposed the defense of alibi to
the effect that when the incident happened, they were far from the scene of the
crime. Appellants claimed that they
were at Sitio Agluya, Barangay Manganese, Anilao, Iloilo allegedly attending
the baptism of the son of Zenaida Arante (Hear­ing, June 27, 1983, TSN, pp. 88; 91; 106).

Well-entrenched is the rule that for alibi to prosper, it is not
enough that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it
must likewise be demonstrated that he was so far away that he could not have
been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at
the time of its commission (People v. Santillan, 157 SCRA 535 [1988]; People v.
Perante, Jr., 143 SCRA 56 [1986]; People v. Gapasin, 145 SCRA 178 [1986]).

In the case at bar, assuming that the accused really went to
Anilao in the morning of October 31, 1981, it is still possible for them to be
at the scene of the crime at 7:00 o’clock in the evening of October 31, 1981 as
it requires only two hours travel­ling time (Hearing, June 27, 1988; TSN, p.
106).

More than that, the records show that their alibi is inconsistent with their admissions
to the police and with their presence at the scene of the crime as established
by the testimonies of credible witnesses. The presence of Joselito in the store that evening negated his defense of alibi and so is the presence of all three of them at
the site of the gunfire.

No less important is the fact that the defense of alibi put up by
the accused to the effect that they attended the baptism of the son of Zenaida
Arante on October 31, 1981 at the Roman Catholic Church of Anilao, Iloilo was
completely controverted by evidence (Exhibit “F”), a certification issued
by the parish priest to the effect that no baptism of the aforecited parties
took place in said church. In fact, Fr.
Gerardo Tanilog himself testified to that effect as rebuttal witness for the
prosecution (Hearing, April 16, 1984, TSN, pp. 2-11). Besides, during the trial, accused failed to present Zenaida
Arante nor the baptismal certificate of Robert Arante, Zenaida’s son.

It is likewise well-settled that alibi cannot prevail over the
positive testimony of prosecution witnesses and their clear identification of
the accused as the perpetrator of the crime (People v. Garcia, 141 SCRA 336;
People v. De las Pinas, supra; People v. Cabanit, 139 SCRA 94 cited in
People v. Andres, 155 SCRA 290 [1987]). The accused-appellants were positively identified by no less than
three witnesses, Norberto de la Cruz, Alejandro Alagos and Severino Petrola.

Be that as it may, appellants vehemently object to the findings
of the trial court that conspiracy in the case at bar exists which implicates
all the accused as principals by common design.

There appears to be no argument that conspiracy exists when two
or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it, whether they act through physical volition of one or all,
proceeding severally or collectively (People v. Laguardia, 148 SCRA 133 [1987];
People v. Petenia, 143 SCRA 361 [1986]; People v. Agda, 111 SCRA 330 [1982];
People v. Sy, 113 SCRA 207 [1982]; People v. Monaga, 118 SCRA 466 [1982];
People v. Dayag, 98 SCRA 235 [1980]). While it is desi­rable that the conspiracy be proved by direct evidence,
like an expressed understanding among the parties affirming their commitment
and defining their respective roles, it may nevertheless be established at
times by circumstantial evidence (People v. Patil, 149 SCRA 92 [1987]; Castillo
v. Sandiganbayan, 151 SCRA 425 [1987]; People v. Ancheta, 148 SCRA 178 [1987];
People v. Viray, 147 SCRA 146 [1987]). Conspiracy is likewise established by evidence of unity of purpose at
the time of the commission of the offense and unity in its execution (People v.
Bravante, 150 SCRA 569 [1987]; People v. Rosas, 149 SCRA 464 [1987]).

The chain of circumstances found by the trial court shows
complicity between the appellants and Victorino Villalobos who remained at
large. A careful review of the records
shows that all three accused were together in the execution of their criminal
design. But more than that, they were
animated by one and the same purpose, that of cooperating with the other
co-accused in bringing about the death of the victim and evidence showed that
by their very acts during and after the commission of the crime, they were
acting in concert. Therefore, as
conspirators, the accused are equally responsible for the acts of their co­conspirators
(People v. Manlolo and Garcia, G.R. No. L-40778, January 28, 1989; People v.
Tamba, 147 SCRA 427 [1987]).

On the question of whether the offense was committed with
treachery, it is clear from the testimony of Dr. Deza which was based on his
actual findings regarding the gunshot wounds sus­tained by the deceased, that
the entrance wounds are all located at the back of the victim Eduardo Alarba, a
clear indication that the victim was shot from behind with his back towards the
assail­ants. In a number of cases, it
has been held that there is treachery when the defenseless victim was shot from
behind with­out risk to his assailants (People v. Melgar, 157 SCRA 718 [1988;
People v. Asil, 141 SCRA 286 [1986]).

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is Affirmed with
the modi­fication that the civil liability is increased to P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., (Chairman), Feliciano, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur.

*
Penned by Judge Ricardo M. Ilarde, RTC, Branch XXVI, Iloilo City