PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARMANDO SOLARES Y MANALOTO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Caloocan City, Branch 131, finding the appellant
Armando Solares guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Baltazar Mercado the sum of P30,000.00;
to reimburse the said heirs the sum of P11,300.00 representing the funeral and
burial expenses actually incurred; and to pay the costs.

The appellant with four
other persons identified as Rodolfo Solares, Enrico de los Santos, Roberto de los Santos and Olly Fernandez
were charged with Murder in an information which
alleged:

“That on or about the 31st day of July, 1986, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring together and mutually
helping one another, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, stab and hit with adobe stone one Baltazar Mercado y Gubat on the
vital parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical
injuries, which caused his death on the above specified date.

Contrary to law.” (Rollo, p. 13)

Only the appellant Solares was arraigned as the other accused remained at
large.

The prosecution evidence
upon which the trial court based its finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
is summarized by the court as follows:

“That at about 2:00 A.M. of July 31, 1986, witness Estrella Cunanan was at her house
when she saw that the victim Baltazar Mercado was fetched
by three of his friends (barkada) and was brought to
a small alley way near P. Sevilla Street, Caloocan City; she later heard a loud commotion and the
shouts of the victim; after hearing the victim shouting, she went out and saw
the victim being held by the two brothers, accused and Junior Solares (accused was holding the right arm of victim with both hands while Junior Solares was holding the left arm of victim likewise with
both hands) while Enrico de los
Santos repeatedly stabbed the victim; when Enrico de los Santos stabbed the victim the former’s
father Roberto de los Santos shouted “GO ON KILL HIM.  GO ON KILL HIM”
and at that instance Olly Fernandez came and hit the victim on the head with an
adobe stone causing the victim to fall down; after being stabbed and hit on the
head with an adobe stone, victim was still able to run and was pursued by Enrico de los Santos.

“The victim Baltazar Mercado was
brought to the Jose R.
Reyes Memorial Hospital
but was pronounced DOA (Exh. “C”).  Dr. Desiderio A. Moraleda, PCCL Medico-Legal Examiner testified that the
victim suffered eleven (11) stab wounds and one (1) incised wound and, as a
result of which, the cause of death of the victim is ‘cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage as a
result of multiple stab wounds of
the body” (Exh. “C-1”
and “D”).

“The expenses incurred by the family of the victim were P5,500.00 for funeral expenses, P2,500.00 for morgue fees,
P3,000.00 for the wake, and P300.00 for jeepney
rental during the burial or a total of P11,300.00.” (Rollo,
p. 14)

Solares raises the following assigned
errors in this appeal:

I

“THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
ERRED IN GIVING MUCH CREDENCE TO THE VERSION OF LONE EYE-WITNESS ESTRELLA
CUNANAN; AND

II

“THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT LIKEWISE ERRED
IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF CONSPIRACY AND TREACHERY IN
CONVICTING THE HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED.” (Rollo, pp. 26-27)

The appellant questions the trial court’s appreciation of the
evidence presented particularly the credibility of the witnesses.

We have reiterated time and again in a long line of cases that a
trial court’s factual conclusions carry great weight as it had the privilege of
observing the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses and, therefore, can discern
if the witnesses are telling the truth or not. 
(People v. Bachar, G.R. No. 78269, February
27, 1989; People v. Molato, G.R. No. 66634, February
27, 1989; People v. Gimongala, G.R. No. 62968-69,
February 27, 1989; People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 74657, February 27, 1989; People
v. Gaddi, G.R. No. 74065, February 27, 1989; People v. Abaya,
G.R. No. 77980, February 27, 1989; People v. Paco,
G.R. No. 76893, February 27, 1989; People v. Baluyot,
G.R. No. 82998, February 23, 1989; People v. Millora,
G.R. Nos. 38968-70, February 9, 1989).

We have carefully examined the records and we find no reason to
discredit the trial court’s appreciation of
the evidence of the prosecution and that of the defense.

It is of no moment that the prosecution presented a lone eyewitness.  If her uncorroborated testimony is credible
and positive, and satisfies the court beyond reasonable doubt then it is
sufficient to justify conviction.  (People v. Ibal, 143 SCRA 317 (1986)).

The trial court gave credence to the positive identification made
by prosecution witness Estrella Cunanan
because it found her testimony “logical, straight-forward and more
probable, and her credibility was not in any manner
shaken by cross-examination to which she had been exposed.” (Rollo, p. 17).

The appellant tries to cast some doubt on Cunanan’s
testimony by pointing to the fact that she was summoned only on January 2, 1987 despite the fact that the incident happened
on July 31, 1986.

This was satisfactorily explained as the appellant was
apprehended only on January 2, 1987.  Four other co-accused
were still at large during the trial.

The appellant does not
really impugn the testimony of Cunanan.

Solares cites the testimony of Cunanan wherein she stated that the appellant was holding
the right arm of the victim Baltazar Mercado and Junior Solares
was holding the left arm while Enrico de los Santos repeatedly stabbed Mercado. 
Since that was his only participation in the crime, he contends that he
cannot be convicted of murder.

The contention is without merit.

The presence of
conspiracy was clearly established in the case at bar.  The assailants were animated by one and the
same purpose – that is to inflict harm on Mercado.  (People v. Manlolo, G.R. No. 40778, January 26, 1989).

The question as to who actually
stabbed Mercado, therefore, becomes of no consequence.  It is settled that in conspiracy, the act of
one is the act of all.  (People v. Millora, supra).

The appellant also questions the finding of the presence of treachery.  He contends that the attack on the victim was
frontal; as such the victim was not completely deprived of his prerogative to
defend himself or to retaliate.

On the contrary, the victim was completely helpless. 
Both his hands were held by the attackers.  In fact, the accused held the victim’s right
arm with both of his hands.  There were
five people including Solares who were ganging up on
him.

As held in the case of People v. Gimongala,
supra.

“We sustain the finding of treachery against them as it is
clear that they had adopted means and methods to insure the commission of the
offenses without risk to themselves from any defense their unwary victims might
make.  It bears stressing that their
victims were totally unprepared for their sudden attack and also without any
weapons to resist it.”

Finally, the appellant alleges that he and the victim were good
friends so he had no motive in wanting him killed.

The absence of improper motive on the part of the accused and the raising of the defense of
alibi that the appellant was asleep at the time of the killing in his house in
the same neighborhood cannot prevail over the straightforward narration of the
prosecution eyewitness, more so as no ill motive was attributed to the latter
to prevaricate the truth.  (People v. Trinidad, G.R.
Nos. 79123-25, January 9, 1989).

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.