PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JESUS CAMAHALAN ALIAS ESOY, A CERTAIN BONGI, A CERTAIN ASTOR AND A CERTAIN POTOT, ACCUSED, JESUS CAMAHALAN ALIAS ESOY, ACCUSED…

For the killing of Juanito de Castro on February 22, 1982, the
accused-appellant Jesus Camahalan was charged with the crime of murder in the
Circuit Criminal Court at Cebu City. The information read as follows:

That on or about the 22nd day of February, 1982, at about midnight,
in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, armed with a sharp bladed instrument, conniving and
confederating together and mutually helping with one another, with deliberate
intent, with intent to kill Juanito de Castro, taking advantage of their
superior strength, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there
attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one Juanito de
Castro by stabbing him on different parts of his body thus inflicting upon him
the following injuries:

HEMORRHAGE, MASSIVE SECONDARY TO MULTIPLE
STAB WOUNDS, BODY AND (R) UPPER (EXTREMITY).

and as a consequence of said injuries
Juanito de Castro died the following (d)ay.

Contrary to law with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and
evident premeditation and with the (attendance) of aggravating circumstance of
the accused taking advantage of their superior strength.

After trial on the merits, judgment was rendered on August 23,
1982, the dispositive portion of which read:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Jesus Camahalan, alias Esoy,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER described in the
aforequoted information. There being
neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances adduced and proven, the Court
sentences the accused to the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with the accessory
penalties of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Juanito de Castro
in the sum of P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
and to pay proportionate costs.

SO ORDERED.

In this appeal, it is submitted that the trial court erred in
believing the testimony of the lone prosecution witness although it was riddled
with inconsistencies, improbabilities and absurdities, and in holding that the
evidence of the prosecution had overturned the constitutional presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused-appellants.

As found by the trial court, the Karate Club of the Vortex Libra
Gym, situated at 1405 M.J. Cuenco Avenue, Mabolo, Cebu City, held a conference
on February 22, 1982, between 10:00 and 12:00 in the evening. After the conference, Juanito de Castro, a
karate instructor, and Marcelo Estorco, a club member proceeded to the
roadside, where they waited for a public vehicle to take them home. When a passenger jeep arrived, De Castro and
Estorco boarded it, together with Camahalan, who seated himself in front of De
Castro. Three companions of Camahalan,
namely, Bongi, Artor and Potot, climbed up the side of the vehicle and held on
to it as they stood on the running board.

When the jeepney was about 35 meters away from the gymnasium,
Potot suddenly pulled out a knife and stabbed Estorco. The driver of the jeep immediately stopped
the vehicle and Estorco fell to the ground.

As De Castro rose from his seat to help Estorco, Camahalan
unexpectedly and without warning stabbed him on the chest. De Castro was still able to alight from the
jeep, but Camahalan and his three companions rushed toward him, with Bongi
stabbing him once or twice and Artor stabbing him twice. After the attack, the four fled.

Estorco and De Castro were brought to the Velez General
Hospital. Estorco survived but De
Castro died.

Dr. Jesus P. Cerna, police medico-legal officer, conducted the
autopsy on De Castro and declared the cause of death as “hemorrhage, massive, secondary to multiple stab wounds,
body and right upper extremity.”^[1]

Camahalan was the only one arrested for the killing of De
Castro. His three companions remained
at large.

In his defense, Camahalan denied the charge against him. He claimed that in the evening of February
22, 1982, he was working as a watchman at the parking area of the Reflection Disco on M.J. Cuenco Avenue and that
because his house was only fifty meters away, he did not have to take any
public transportation to go to work. He
just walked.^[2]
His alibi was corroborated by Antonio Flores, a barangay policeman, who testified that at midnight of February
22, 1982, he passed by the Reflection Disco and talked to Camahalan.^[3]

This case hinges on the credibility of the witnesses. In the view of the Court, the trial judge
was correct in believing the testimony of the eyewitness for the prosecution
rather than on the story concocted by the accused-appellant and his witness.

Marcelo Estorco, who was with De Castro during that fatal
incident, positively identified the accused-appellant as one of the three
persons who stabbed and killed De Castro.^[4] He
testified in a simple, straightforward manner, mentioning details of the
incident that could not have been merely fabricated. Estorco explained how he was stabbed by one of the accused?appellant’s
companions, how he fell from the jeep after having been stabbed, and how he
actually saw Camahalan stab De Castro on the chest.^[5] Even
during his cross-examination, Estorco stood fast on his testimony and the
defense failed to trip him on any of the salient points of his narration of the
incident in question.^[6]

The assessment by the trial court of the credibility of the prosecution
witness is entitled to much respect. It
has not been shown that Estorco had any improper motive in testifying falsely
against the accused-appellant, which would be against human nature and the
presumption of good faith.^[7]
Significantly, the accused-appellant himself admitted that he knew of no motive
that Estorco might have in imputing the crime to him.^[8]

The alibi of the accused-appellant that he was not present when
the deceased was killed cannot prevail over his positive identification by the
eyewitness for the prosecution. The
testimony of Antonio Flores that he saw Camahalan working at the Reflection
Disco in the night of February 22, 1982, is insufficient. It was not enough to prove that the
accused-appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed. It was also necessary to show that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission in view of his claimed presence at the Reflection Disco
which, significantly, was on the same street where the stabbings occurred. In the absence of such proof, the positive
identification of the accused-appellant as one of the assailants should prevail
over his denial.

The Court also agrees that the accused-appellant conspired with
his companions in the killing of De Castro. It is clear that he acted in concert with the others in stabbing the
victim to death. It is enough that at
the time the offense was committed, the participants had the same purpose and
were united in its execution, as could
be inferred from the attendant circumstances.^[9] In a
conspiracy, the co-conspirator is not
held responsible only for his own individual act, for the act of one is the act
of all.^[10]

While every person accused of a crime is entitled to the constitutional presumption of
innocence, that presumption may be overcome with proof of his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. That proof has been
satisfactorily established in this case.

The trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellant of
murder qualified by treachery. Without
any warning, he and his companions attacked the deceased in the absence of any
provocation or aggression on the part of the latter. So sudden and unexpected was the attack that the deceased had no
chance to defend himself against the four men who fell upon him.

The penalty of murder as provided
for by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal
in its maximum period to death. However, since the death penalty has been proscribed under the 1987
Constitution, the trial court correctly imposed upon the appellant the penalty
of reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity ordered by the trial court to be paid by the
appellant to the legal heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00 is
hereby increased to P50,000.00, conformably with the present policy of this
Court.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED,
except as to the civil indemnity to be paid
to the legal heirs of the deceased which is increased to P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Griño-Aquino, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Exhibit “A” – Necropsy Report; TSN, May 10, 1982, p. 4.

^[2]
TSN, August 2, 1982, pp. 13-17.

^[3]
TSN, August 23, 1982, p. 3.

^[4]
TSN, June 28, 1982, p. 4.

^[5]
Ibid., pp. 4-6.

^[6]
Id., pp. 10-23.

^[7]
People v. Lacao, Sr., 201 SCRA 317 (1991).

^[8]
TSN, July 15, 1982, p. 16.

^[9]
People v. Bolima, 195 SCRA 614 (1991).

^[10]
People v. Arroyo, 201 SCRA 616 (1991).