PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENITO ESPIRITU Y ISRAEL ALIAS ITONG, PEPING MANDAC ALIAS PEPING, SERRENG, AND BERTING CALISO ALIAS BILLIT, ACCUSED, PEREGRINO…

In the evening of May
30, 1976, at about seven o’clock,
four men came to the house of Bernardo Cristobal in Uluan, Cunig, Gattaran,
in Cagayan. 
They asked to buy a can of rice, but Bernardo invited them instead to
have supper with them.  They accepted and
had the repast with Bernardo, his wife, Rosa, his daughter, Felina,
her husband, Marcelino Batu,
and their four children.

After the meal, the group moved to the balcony, where they
engaged in conversation.  They asked
Bernardo if he had a gun and the latter said no.  Suddenly, the men drew their weapons and one
of them shot Bernardo in the face.  Rosa and Felina
were dragged back by their hair as they attempted to help Bernardo.  Somebody clubbed him on the head with a rice
pestle.  Then the men jumped from the
balcony and fled.  Bernardo died the
following morning.

In due time, an information for murder was filed against Benito Espiritu, Peregrino Abarquez, Dominador Combate, and Berting Caliso.  Espiritu jumped bail and is still at large.  Caliso died before
the case could be decided.  On July 16, 1987, the trial court
rendered a decision convicting
both Abarquez and Combate
of the crime charged and sentenced them to life imprisonment.  They were also required to pay civil indemnity in the sum of
P30,000.00, plus the costs.^[1]

In this appeal, both Abarquez and Combate contend that they were not sufficiently identified
by the prosecution witnesses.  They also
claim that the respondent court erred in not giving credence to their alibi, which established that they were nowhere at the scene of the crime
when it was committed.

The identification of the
two was made by Rosa Cristobal and Felina Batu, who were both
present when Bernardo was killed.  They each pointed to Dominador
Combate as the person who shot Bernardo. 
The two witnesses sat with the
four assailants at the same table when they took supper together and then
conversed with them at the balcony where they suddenly attacked Bernardo.  They were both present at the time of the
surprise attack.  There was sufficient
illumination from the kerosene lamps that lit the house.

The argument that the accused-appellants should have been
identified at a police line-up is not acceptable.  There is no law requiring a police line-up as essential to a proper identification.  And it
is not true that the identification was merely suggested to the witnesses by the
police for the fact is that Rosa immediately recognized the accused-appellants
at the police station.

As the trial court correctly observed:

Rosa Cristobal, wife of the victim, could not have been
mistaken in identifying the accused Dominador Combate as the
one who shot her husband Bernardo Cristobal because
(1) she was sitting side by side with her husband at the balcony when Dominador Combate, Peregrino Abarquez, Benito Espiritu and the unnamed companion pulled her husband; (2)
the balcony was lighted with a bottled kerosene lamp; (3) she had the
opportunity to recognize their faces when they all ate together in the kitchen
as she was seated beside Peregrino Abarquez, Dominador Combate was seated in front of her husband and Benito Espiritu was seated beside her husband; and (4) she was
with her husband at the balcony when the accused arrived in the house and her
husband told them to come up their
house.  Felina Batu corroborated Rosa Cristobal’s
testimony on these particular facts, as she also was in the balcony when Dominador Combate, Peregrino Abarquez, Benito Espiritu and the fourth companion arrived in the house; ate
with them in the kitchen; saw her father Bernardo Cristobal
being pulled by the said four persons; shouting to her mother that her father
was being killed by the four persons as she was only about two meters away from
them; and that the balcony was lighted with
a bottled kerosene lamp.

The many inconsistencies in
the testimony of both Rosa and Felina can be explained by the fact that they were not experienced in
testifying and were probably confused or raffled when they were
under examination.  At any rate, the
discrepancies are minor and do not affect the essential credibility of their
declarations as a whole. 
Furthermore, and no less important, even the accused-appellants admitted that the
witnesses had no motive for
testifying falsely against them as they had not known each other before the commission of the
crime.

The alibi of the accused-appellants is not persuasive.  According to them, they were both in Rosario,
Lallo, Cagayan, when the
crime was committed.  They presented witnesses
to corroborate their statement that they were both attending a fiesta at that
time and until dawn and that they went
to a baptismal party the following day. 
That may be so, but that does not mean they could not have
gone first to Bernardo’s house before attending the fiesta, considering
that the distances between Rosario and Cunig could have been negotiated in about an hour and a
half.  More significantly, the two
accused-appellants were positively identified by the two prosecution
witnesses who actually saw the slaying
of Bernardo.

There is no question that the four assailants acted in conspiracy with each other.  This was evident from the time they went to
Bernardo’s house pretending to look for a lost
carabao and, more convincingly, when they moved in
concert to kill Bernardo even as the two witnesses were pulled away by
the hair, after which all four of them
fled together.  As conspirators,
they are each liable for the attack on Bernardo,
regardless of who actually pulled the trigger or wielded the club that killed
him.

It was also correctly held by the trial judge that the killing
was qualified by treachery, as the attack took Bernardo completely by surprise,
let alone the further fact that two of the men prevented Rosa and Felina from succoring the victim.  The assailants clearly took steps to insure
the commission of the offense without risk to themselves arising from the defense the offended party might
make.  However, nighttime should not have
been considered a separate
aggravating circumstance as this was absorbed by alevosia.^[2]
But dwelling was properly taken into account as the murder was committed in the
house of the victim.^[3]

The appropriate penalty would
have been death, but as this is
no longer allowed under the Constitution, it
is reduced to reclusion perpetua.  Conformably to the resolution of the Court
dated August 30, 1990, the
civil indemnity is increased to P50,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the
decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED as
above modified.  It is so ordered.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1] Decision penned by Judge Ricardo A. Baculi.

^[2] People v. Bardon,
165 SCRA 416; People v. Brioso, 155 SCRA 463;
People v. Ramillano, 133 SCRA 201.

^[3] People v. Perante,
143 SCRA 56; People v. Brioso, 155 SCRA 463; People v. Liston, G.R. No. 63396, November 15, 1989.