PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CRESENCIO JIMENEZ, JR., RONALD JIMENEZ, CRESENCIO JIMENEZ, SR., JESSIE JIMENEZ AND ERLINDA PAGLINAWAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the May 4, 1988 decision* of the Regional Trial Court, Masbate, Masbate
(Branch XLIV) in Criminal Case No. 4951 finding herein appellants Cresencio
Jimenez, Jr. and Ronald Jimenez guilty of the crime of Murder, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court being convinced beyond reasonable doubt
of the guilt of Cresencio
Jimenez and Ronald Jimenez, Cresencio Jimenez is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to
be served at the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa, Rizal. As for the other accused Ronald Jimenez,
there being present mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender and applying the indeterminate
sentence law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 12 years and 1
day to 14 years of reclusion temporal to be served at Muntinlupa, Rizal. They are hereby ordered to pay the heirs of
Pio Areglado in the form of damages, the sum of P30,000.00 to be paid pro-rata
by the accused, and to pay the costs of the suit.

SO
ORDERED.”

(RTC
Decision, Rollo, p. 20)

On December 3, 1985, the Acting Station Commander, INP, Cpl.
Carlito P. Asilum, filed a criminal complaint for Murder against Cresencio
Jimenez, Jr., Ronald Jimenez, Cresencio Jimenez, Sr., Jessie Jimenez and Erlinda Paglinawan (Original Records, p.
8). After examining under oath the
prosecution witnesses and finding reasonable ground to believe that the
defendants committed the crime and are probably guilty thereof, Municipal
Circuit Trial Judge Jacinta B. Tambago ordered the issuance of a Warrant of
Arrest with no bail recommended (Ibid., pp. 13-14). However, only herein appellants Cresencio Jimenez, Jr. and Ronald
Jimenez were arrested while their parents, Cresencio Jimenez, Sr. and Erlinda
Paglinawan, and their brother, Jessie Jimenez, remained at large (Ibid., p.
15). On March 6, 1986, Municipal
Circuit Trial Judge Jacinta B. Tambago ordered that the records of the case be
forwarded to the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate for the filing of the corresponding
Information with the proper court (Ibid., p. 17).

On March 24, 1986, Second Assistant Provincial Fiscal Jesus C.
Castillo filed an Information for Murder, and docketed as Criminal Case No.
4951, which reads:

“That on or about November 22, 1985, in the morning thereof,
at barangay Balantay, Municipality of Dimasalang, Province of Masbate,
Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Court, the said accused
confederating together and helping one another, with intent to kill, evident
premeditation, treachery and superiority of strength, did then and there
willfully unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault with a spear, shoot with a
spear gun, stab with a scythe and hack with a bolo one Pio Areglado, hitting
the latter on different parts of the body, thereby inflicting wounds which
directly caused his instantaneous death.

Contrary to law.”

(Information, Original Records, p. 1)

Upon arraignment on July 23, 1986, Ronald Jimenez and Cresencio
Jimenez, Jr. entered a plea of not guilty (Ibid., p. 22). Thereafter, trial ensued.

The prosecution presented Dr. Ernesto Tamayo, Teofila Areglado
and Rolando Palacay as witnesses while the defense presented Ronald Jimenez,
Cresencio Jimenez, Jr. and Carlos Mitra as witnesses.

Dr. Ernesto Tamayo, Rural Health Officer and
a resident of Dimasalang, Masbate, testified that he conducted a postmortem
examination on the body of Pio Areglado on November 27, 1985 and issued a
corresponding postmortem report (Exhibit “A”, Original Records, p.
35). In said report, he noted that the
victim, Pio Areglado, sustained five (5) wounds which were caused by different
weapons and contusions on different parts of the body. Said wounds were fatal and were the cause of
the instantaneous death of the victim. Although the cadaver was already embalmed when he examined it, he is
certain that the wounds were not caused by the embalming process (TSN, August
14, 1986, pp. 2-10).

Mrs. Teofila Areglado, widow of the victim
Pio Areglado, and an eyewitness of the prosecution recounted that in the
morning of November 22, 1985, she was in their coconut plantation in Balantay,
Dimasalang, Masbate with her late husband and their hired help Rolando Palacay
and Reynaldo Arcenal. Her husband was
fixing the rope to be used on the pushcart in loading the copra when they heard
the sound of coconut being gathered. She was asked by her husband to check who was still gathering the
coconuts. Upon reaching the place where
the sound came from, she saw herein appellant Ronald Jimenez up in one of the
coconut trees. She asked the latter to
stop gathering the coconuts since they owned the same. He asked her to wait for him and upon
reaching the ground chased her. She ran
and shouted for help. Ronald Jimenez
was able to overtake her and tried to hit her with his scythe which fortunately
did not find its mark. Thereafter, she
saw Ronald Jimenez, together with Cresencio Jimenez, Jr., Cresencio Jimenez,
Sr., and Jessie Jimenez, chasing her husband. About thirty (30) meters from where she was standing, the four (4)
Jimenezes encircled her husband who raised his arms as sign of surrender. She saw Jessie Jimenez pierce a wooden spear on her husband’s left
breast. Cresencio Jimenez, Jr. shot her
husband with a spear gun hitting him in the right forearm. Ronald Jimenez, using a scythe, slashed her husband’s neck while Cresencio
Jimenez, Sr. hacked her husband with a bolo and thrust the same on his
back. She identified in court pictures
of her husband (Exhibit “C” – “C-16”, Original Records, p.
34) showing the wounds he sustained during the attack (TSN, October 16, 1986,
pp. 14-23). While this was taking
place, Erlinda Paglinawan, wife of Cresencio Jimenez, Sr. and mother of the
three (3) other accused, was about ten (10) meters away, carrying a child and
shouting “Kill him!”. She did
not see where the other accused came
from as she started to run when Ronald Jimenez gave her a chase (Ibid., p. 26).

Rolando Palacay, a farmer and resident of Piyaong,
Dimasalang, Masbate, corroborated the testimony of Teofila Areglado including
the manner of the attack and the wounds inflicted by each of the accused (TSN,
November 26, 1986, pp. 30-33). He
likewise declared that he and Reynaldo Arcenal, another hired help of the
Areglados, did not do anything during the incident due to fear (Ibid., pp.
34-35).

Appellant Ronald Jimenez, denied the declarations
of Teofila Areglado and Reynaldo Palacay. He testified that he alone is responsible for the death of Pio
Areglado. He narrated that in the
morning of November 22, 1985, he was on his way to the river carrying a scythe
and a spear gun when he met Pio Areglado who had a bolo and a piece of
wood. Upon seeing him, the latter
declared “It’s better that you are here, I kill you first!” With
these words, he tried to hit Ronald Jimenez with the piece of wood but he was
able to parry the blow with the use of his spear gun. He then fired his spear gun hitting Pio Areglado in the right
forearm. With his right arm wounded,
the latter tried to pull out his bolo with his left hand. Ronald picked up the piece of wood and
pierced the same on the right breast of Pio Areglado. When the latter fell to the ground, he pulled out his scythe and
slashed Pio’s neck. He then got hold of
Pio’s bolo and thrust the same at his side. He then left and surrendered to the police. He further testified that Teofila Areglado was present during the
encounter but ran away when her husband struck him (TSN, July 22, 1987, pp.
43-47). He did not have the time to run
away nor did he think of running to their house because his mother had just
given birth and he was afraid that she might have a relapse. He declared that his brother Cresencio
Jimenez, Jr. was then sick and was resting in their house while his father,
Cresencio Jimenez, Sr., and his other brother, Jessie Jimenez, went to
Dimasalang to buy some provisions (Ibid., p. 49).

On cross examination, he testified that after the incident, he
went directly to the police station after washing the blood stains on his body
in the river. His family learned about
the incident the following day when his brother Cresencio Jimenez, Jr. was
arrested (Ibid., pp. 58-59).

Appellant Cresencio Jimenez, Jr. testified
that he learned about the incident when he was apprehended at about 8:30 in the
morning of November 22, 1985. He was
then at home, sick with fever, with his mother, younger brother Bernaldo and
sister. His father Cresencio Jimenez,
Sr. and brother Jessie Jimenez were not in the house as they had left together
early that morning. He was brought to
the detachment where he stayed for three (3) days. He was then brought to the Municipal Jail of Dimasalang, Masbate
where he saw his younger brother Ronald (TSN, October 19, 1987, pp. 63-­71). He further testified that his parents and
brother Jessie escaped after the incident because they were included in the charge. The probable cause of the killing is the
complaint of his mother against Teofila Areglado regarding the boundary of
their adjoining parcels of land over which about twenty (20) coconut trees were
planted and from which Pio Areglado has been harvesting coconuts for some three
(3) months (Ibid., pp. 77-78). He
learned the details of the incident from his brother Ronald during their stay
in the Municipal Jail (Ibid., p. 82).

Carlos Mitra, member of the INP Station of
Dimasalang, Masbate, testified on the fact that Ronald Jimenez voluntarily
surrendered to the Police Station as shown in Entry No. 1026 page 557 of the
police blotter (Exhibit “1”, Original Records, p. 65) which reads:

“At about 10:35 in the morning, one Ronald Jimenez y
Paglinawan voluntarily surrendered to
this station for having scythed one Pio Areglado on his neck at Barangay
Balantay, Dimasalang, Masbate.

Said perpetrator was detained for further investigation.”

As aforementioned, the court a quo convicted herein
appellants of the crime of Murder. Hence, this appeal.

Appellants faulted the trial court for giving too much probative
value to the evidence of the prosecution and in not acquitting appellant
Cresencio Jimenez, Jr. on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Appellants allege that the lower court relied on the testimony of
prosecution witness Teofila Areglado in convicting them; that testimony should
not be believed for it can be inferred that Ronald Jimenez got mad and chased
Teofila Areglado after being told to stop gathering the coconuts. (However, she was merely pushed aside when
she was overtaken, without any injury inflicted upon her), that the other
accused were not seen in the place where Ronald was gathering the coconuts and
neither was it established where they came from; that finally, the rest of the
family were implicated by reason of the number of wounds sustained by the
deceased (Brief for the Appellants, Rollo, pp. 41-43).

As to the second assigned error, appellants contend that since
the testimony of Teofila Areglado is not credible, there is insufficient
evidence to convict appellant Cresencio Jimenez, Jr. If her testimony is to be believed, she would have been killed
first. The implication of the other
accused to the crime is to make it appear that there was conspiracy in the
crime committed (Ibid., pp. 42-44).

Appellant’s contentions are devoid of merit.

It is well settled that the findings of the trial court which had
the best opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses testify and to weigh
their testimonies, are given the highest respect and recognition by the
appellate court (People vs. Martinada, 194 SCRA 36 [February 13, 1991]).

Appellant Ronald Jimenez admits that he killed Pio Areglado but
claims that he did it in self defense. Having invoked self defense, it was incumbent upon him to prove by clear
and convincing evidence the main ingredient of the defense. He must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for even if it were weak,
it could not be disbelieved after the accused had admitted the killing
(Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 484 [July 13, 1990]). His claim that he alone killed Pio Areglado
is negated by the autopsy report of Dr. Ernesto Tamayo that the victim
sustained five (5) wounds inflicted by different weapons (People vs. Bocatcat,
Sr., 188 SCRA 175 [July 31, 1990]). The
nature and the number of wounds inflicted by an assailant are constantly and
unremittingly considered important indicia which disprove a plea of self-defense
(Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals, supra.).

As regards appellant Cresencio Jimenez, Jr., his main defense is
alibi. He maintains that he was at home
sleeping and sick with fever when the incident happened. It has been consistently held that for the defense
of alibi to succeed, it must be shown that the accused was at some other place
at the time of the alleged crime and that it was physically impossible for him
to have been at the site of the crime at the time of its commission either
before or after the time he was at such other place. If the required physical impossibility of being present at the
scene of the crime is not proved, the defense becomes unavailing to the accused
(People vs. Sorio, 190 SCRA 548 [October 17, 1990] reiterating People vs. Maloloy-on,
189 SCRA 250 [August 30, 1990]). In the
case at bar, appellants’ house is about forty (40) meters from the scene of the
crime (TSN, July 22, 1987, p. 48). Hence, it is not physically impossible for appellant Cresencio Jimenez,
Jr. to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Moreover, assuming that he indeed had fever,
he has not shown that the sickness prevented him from leaving the house.

Furthermore, the defense of alibi, a defense inherently weak and
difficult, cannot stand against the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses of the appellants as the
author of the crime (People vs. Mision,
194 SCRA 432 [February 26, 1991]). Prosecution witnesses Teofila
Areglado and Rolando Papacay were one in pointing to herein appellants,
together with their father and their brother, as the persons responsible for
the death of Pio Areglado.

As charged in the Information, the crime was attended by abuse of
superior strength. The circumstance of
abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size and strength of the
parties. It is considered whenever
there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor
which is selected or taken advantage of him in the commission of the
crime. To take advantage of superior
strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means
of the defense available to the person attacked (People vs. Carpio, 191 SCRA
108 [October 31, 1990]). In the case at
bar, the victim was merely scantily armed when he was attacked while the
accused were all armed with various weapons, thus Ronald Jimenez was armed with
a scythe, Cresencio Jimenez, Jr. had a spear gun, Cresencio Jimenez, Sr. used a
bolo while Jessie Jimenez had a spear. This shows that the accused purposely used excessive force out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the victim.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED in
that, both appellants are sentenced to reclusion perpetua
(Ronald’s voluntary surrender not being enough to offset the other
circumstances, with the civil indemnity increased to P50,000.00 payable
solidarity with costs.)

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Judge Manuel C. Genova