PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE MALOLOY-ON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant Felipe
Maloloy-on and his son, Titing Maloloy-on, were charged with murder in the
Regional Trial Court of Masbate in an information dated August 23, 1985 which alleges that on or about July 1, 1985,
at Sitio Basyao, Barangay Jose Abenir,
Sr., Palanas, Masbate, the said accused, with intent to kill, evident
premeditation, treachery and superiority of strength, feloniously attacked and
hacked with bolos one Biotesma Tambago, thereby inflicting wounds on the victim
which directly caused her instantaneous death.^[1]

Only appellant Felipe
Maloloy-on was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, with the assistance of his
counsel de parte.^[2] Accused Titing Maloloy-on was not
apprehended and was later reported to be dead, after having purportedly figured
in a stabbing incident, hence the case against him was ordered by the trial
court to be placed in the archives in the absence of proof of his death.

The pertinent facts
divulged during the trial show that in the afternoon of July 1, 1985, spouses
Gerardo and Biotesma Tambago went to visit their coconut plantation situated at
Sitio Basyao, Barangay Jose Abenir, Sr., Palanas, Masbate.^[3] There they saw Titing and Bebot Maloloy-on,
children of appellant Felipe Maloloy-on, making bundles of firewood inside the
plantation. Titing and Bebot ran away,
leaving behind the firewood, their clothes and a petroleum container, and the
spouses waited for them to come back but said children did not return.^[4]

At about 4:00 o’clock in
the afternoon, Biotesma told Gerardo to get their carabao from the creek about
one hundred (100) meters away from their hut.^[5] Gerardo then left his wife. After getting the carabao and when he
returned to the hut where he left his wife, Gerardo Tambago saw accused Felipe
Maloloy-on and Titing Maloloy-on at a distance of about twenty (20) meters
pulling and/or dragging towards the creek the lifeless body of his wife who was
lying flat on the ground.^[6] The accused were wearing white shirts and
maong pants.^[7]

Thereupon, Gerardo
shouted at the accused Felipe and Titing Maloloy-on, saying: “What did you do with my wife?” On
hearing Gerardo, the accused threw Biotesma’s body into the creek and ran away.^[8] Gerardo
proceeded to where his wife was thrown by the accused and saw several hacking
wounds sustained by his wife, one on the nose, another on the neck, and also on
the right arm. After examining the body
of his wife and finding her dead, Gerardo immediately went to the poblacion of
Palanas, Masbate and reported to the police authorities what accused Felipe and
Titing Maloloy-on did to his wife. Gerardo also informed the mother of his wife about the incident.^[9] He likewise reported the matter to the
municipal health officer.^[10]

On July 2, 1985, a
post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Primitivo Monterde, Municipal
Health Officer of Cataingan and Palanas, Masbate, on the cadaver of Biotesma
Tambago.^[11] The examination disclosed that the deceased
sustained the following injuries, viz: Wound No. 1, incised wound on the right arm below the shoulder cutting
it, including the humerus bone and blood vessels; Wound No. 2, incised wound at
the back of the neck, cutting the neck, including the nape bone, blood vessels
and throat (esophagus) leaving a small flap of skin at the thyroid region; and
Wound No. 3, incised wound at the maxillary region cutting the nose, 6.5 inches
in length and 5.0 inches in depth in the maxillary bones, all of which wounds
were fatal^[12] and could have been caused by a sharp-edged
instrument like a bolo.

The defense consists
merely of alibi, that is, that at about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of July 1, 1985, appellant Felipe Maloloy-on, together with his wife and
co-accused Titing, were weeding grass at their farm situated at Sitio Basyao,
Jose Abenir, Sr., Palanas, Masbate.^[13] Appellant also claimed, and this was
corroborated by the testimony of his wife, Rosario,^[14] that on July 3, 1985, upon returning to
their house at Sitio Basyao, he learned from his neighbor that his carabao was
taken by policemen to the Municipal Building of Palanas, Masbate.^[15] He claims that on July 4, 1985, he went to
see Barangay Captain Artemio Abenir to ask why his carabao was taken by
the policemen. Thereafter, he was
accompanied by said barangay captain to the Municipal Building
of Palanas, Masbate.^[16] He, however, averred that when he reached
the place, he was taken into custody and immediately detained by Policemen
Yolly Tambago and Gregorio Tamayo.^[17]

After trial, a judgment
of conviction was rendered by the trial court, the decretal portion of which
reads:

“WHEREFORE, it having been established beyond reasonable doubt
that accused Felipe Maloloy-on committed the offense charged with the aid of
his son Titing Maloloy-on (who is now allegedly dead) employing superior
strength qualified by treachery in the process which aggravating circumstance
is not off-set by any mitigating circumstance, said Felipe Maloloy-on is
penalized under Par. 1 of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and is
sentenced to the extreme penalty of reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the heirs
of the victim in the sum of P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency; to suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law; and to
proportionately pay the costs.

“Credit said accused with the whole period of his preventive
imprisonment; and until it shall have been satisfactorily established that
accused Titing Maloloy-on is now really dead, the case against him is ordered
archived and an alias warrant issued.”^[18]

In
a “Modification of Judgment” dated August 22, 1988, the trial court
increased the amount of indemnity to P30,000.00.^[19]

Hence, this appeal^[20]
where appellant assigns the following reversible errors, to wit:

1. The lower court gravely erred in convicting
accused-appellant of the crime of murder despite the prosecution’s failure to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and in not acquitting
accused-appellant.

2. The lower court gravely erred in giving
weight and credence to the otherwise highly improbable, incredible and
ill-motivated testimonies of prosecution witnesses Gerardo Tambago, Pfc.
Gregorio Tamayo and Artemio Abenir.

3. The lower court gravely erred in
appreciating in evidence the petroleum container (Exh. “B”) and hat
(Exh. “C”) adduced by the prosecution.

4. The lower court gravely erred in concluding
that accused-appellant’s alleged acts of shouting unintelligible words,
defecating on the floor and attempting to escape from detention are indicative
of his guilt of the crime charged.

5. The trial court gravely erred in
discrediting accused-appellant’s defense of alibi.

6. The trial court gravely erred in finding
that the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and treachery
are attendant in the case at bar.^[21]

We affirm, with
modification, the decision appealed from.

As against the clear,
direct and positive identification of Gerardo Tambago that he saw the accused
dragging the lifeless body of his wife, the alibi of appellant Felipe
Maloloy-on cannot prevail. While it is
true that the defense of alibi may sometimes be considered exculpatory, as when
the participation of the appellant is not established beyond cavil,^[22] it is equally settled that for alibi to
succeed it must be shown not only that 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.^[23] If the required physical impossibility of
being present at the scene of the crime is not proved, alibi as a defense
becomes unavailing to the accused.^[24]

In the instant case,
appellant himself admitted that at or about the time when the crime was
committed, he was at his farm in Sitio Basyao, Jose Abenir, Sr., Palanas,
Masbate. It appears that his farm is
only one (1) kilometer away from the coconut plantation where the deceased was
killed,^[25] an easily traversable distance. There was thus no physical impossibility of
his being present at the locus criminis at the time the crime was
committed. It will likewise be observed
that his defense of alibi was corroborated only by his wife and mother-in-law. Such
corroboration by his close relatives, constrains us to receive the same with
extreme caution, considering the added facility of its fabrication.^[26]

Moreover, there is
nothing the records to show that Gerardo Tambago was motivated to testify
falsely against appellant. There is also no possibility that he could have been mistaken in the identity of
appellant for, apart from being at the scene of the crime, he also knew
appellant very well since they are residents of the same place. In fact, appellant also admitted having
known Gerardo Tambago for a long time.^[27] In the absence of any proof that the
principal prosecution witness acted because of improper motive, the presumption
is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and
credit.^[28] What appears instead as a strong probable
cause for the actuations of both accused is the fact that Gerardo
Tambago and his wife caught the children of appellant stealing bundles of
firewood from the former’s coconut plantation.

Appellant’s claim that on
July 4, 1985, he was accompanied by Barangay Captain Artemio Abenir to recover
his carabao at the Municipal Hall of Palanas was belied by the latter himself who
denied having gone with appellant to the municipal hall. Said public official testified, on the contrary, that appellant came to him
to surrender.^[29]
Appellant also posits that it is highly improbable for a husband not to lend
succor to his wife whose life is under threat or danger. Gerardo Tambago’s failure to come to the
rescue of his wife was understandable. He was naturally shocked and taken aback by such unexpected and
frightful occurrence. He was unarmed,
with nobody around to help him, and there were no houses near the creek where
his wife was thrown. However, after
regaining his composure, he immediately rushed to the poblacion and reported
the incident to the police authorities.^[30] This
was confirmed by Pfc. Gregorio Tamayo.^[31]

Gerardo Tambago was the
only eyewitness to the surrounding circumstances of the heinous crime upon
which the guilt of appellant may be established. While it has been said that the
identification of the offender is crucial in every criminal prosecution when
the defense pleads alibi, and in such a case the identity of the culprit must
be established beyond reasonable doubt,^[32] we
are satisfied that there has been an indisputable identification of the accused
in this case. To repeat, prosecution
key witness Gerardo Tambago knew appellant very well and where the latter
resided.^[33]
His having witnessed the two accused dragging the lifeless body of his wife and
running away after he shouted at them indubitably establish the appellant’s
criminal participation. As earlier
explained, prior to the incident in question, the children of appellant
including his co-accused son were at the premises where the crime was
committed.

True, the foregoing
closely-knit narration of events came from the sole eyewitness. Nevertheless, we accord full credence to his
testimony for the reasons hereinbefore stated, bolstered by the fact that his
testimony on the fatal injuries of his wife which he saw and immediately
reported was subsequently corroborated by the post-mortem examination conducted
by Dr. Primitivo Monterde. The
testimony of a lone eyewitness is sufficient
to convict the accused where it was given in a straightforward manner and it
was full of details which by their nature could not have been merely
invented. In determining the
sufficiency of evidence, what matters is not the number of witnesses but the
credibility, nature and quality of the testimony.^[34]

The other remaining
errors assigned by appellant hinge on and may be subsumed under the issue of
credibility. We accordingly reiterate
the time-honored rule that the findings of the trial judge, who had the better
opportunity to observe the witnesses, assess their demeanor on the stand and
evaluate their respective testimonies, should generally be entitled to great
weight unless the court has plainly overlooked the undisputed facts of
substance and value that if properly considered would affect the result of the
case. We do not find any such excepting
feature in this case as would detract from the application of said
doctrinal rule.

We find, however, that
the court a quo erred
in appreciating the circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength
to qualify and aggravate the liability of appellant. Although both circumstances are alleged in the information, they
were not shown beyond reasonable doubt to have been employed by appellant. There was no testimony on the actual nature
and mode of the attack on the hapless victim, much less to show that treachery
was deliberately adopted to ensure the infliction of the fatal wounds.^[35] For the same reason, there is likewise no
evidence of the respective or joint participation of the two accused in
assaulting the victim, much less that they took advantage of their superior
strength. Mere superiority in the
number of assailants, and nothing more, does not constitute the circumstance of
abuse of superior strength.^[36] Furthermore, superior strength is
inherent and absorbed in treachery^[37]
which, latter circumstance, however, was not proved in this case.

Appellant Felipe
Maloloy-on can, therefore, be convicted only of homicide. While there is testimony that appellant
supposedly asked the barangay captain to accompany him to the municipal
building to surrender, this mitigating circumstance was not appreciated by the
trial court obviously because of the conflicting versions thereon. More to the point, appellant stoutly
maintains in his brief that he did not surrender to the police authorities on
July 4, 1985, but that he merely went to the municipal building to retrieve his
impounded carabao.^[38]
Consequently, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be
credited in favor of appellant, with the result that sans any modifying
circumstance, the medium period of reclusion temporal, or fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months
and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, should be imposed
on appellant, with the corresponding application of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law.

WHEREFORE, the
assailed judgment is hereby MODIFIED
by finding
accused-appellant guilty of homicide and imposing on him an indeterminate
sentence of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months
of reclusion temporal, as maximum. With such modification, the judgment of the court below is
AFFIRMED in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.

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

Sarmiento, J., on leave.

^[1]
Original Record, 1.

^[2]
Ibid., 17.

^[3]
TSN, July 21, 1986, 12.

^[4]
Ibid., id., 7.

^[5]
Ibid., id., 26-27.

^[6]
Ibid., id., 9, 29.

^[7]
Ibid., id., 31.

^[8]
Ibid., id., 29-30.

^[9]
Ibid., id., 10.

^[10]
Ibid., id., 36.

^[11]
Ibid., October 17, 1986, 3.

^[12]
Ibid., id., 4-5; Original Record, 59.

^[13]
Ibid., August 25, 1987, 4.

^[14]
Ibid., November 9, 1987, 20.

^[15]
Ibid., August 25, 1987, 8.

^[16]
Ibid., id., 7.

^[17]
Ibid., id., 10.

^[18]
Original Record, 156.

^[19]
Ibid., 158.

^[20]
Ibid., 160.

^[21]
Brief for Accused-Appellant, 1-2.

^[22]
People vs. Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. 80762, March 19, 1990.

^[23]
People vs. Brioso, et al., 37 SCRA 336 (1971); People vs. Obando,
et al., G.R. No. 72742, February 12, 1990; People vs. Simene, G.R. No.
86164, April 3, 1990.

^[24]
People vs. Aldeguer, G.R. No.
L-47991, April 3, 1990.

^[25]
TSN, July 21, 1986, 26.

^[26]
People vs. Talla, et al., G.R. No. L-44414, January 18, 1990.

^[27]
TSN, August 25, 1987, 14.

^[28]
People vs. Campana, 124 SCRA 271 (1983); People vs. Noguerras, G.R. No. 76238, January 11, 1990.

^[29]
TSN, May 9, 1988, 2, 4-5.

^[30]
Ibid., July 21, 1986, 10-11, 29.

^[31] Ibid., August 1, 1986, 9.

^[32]
People vs. Acosta, etc., G.R. No. 70133, July 2, 1990.

^[33]
TSN, July 2, 1986, 25-26.

^[34]
People vs. Salazar, et al., 58 SCRA 467 (1974); Cordial vs.
People, et al., 166 SCRA 17 (1988); People vs. Baysa, et al., 172 SCRA
706 (1989).

^[35]
Art. 14 (16), Revised Penal Code; U.S. vs. Pangilion, 34 Phil. 786
(1916); People vs. Tumaob, 83 Phil. 738 (1949); People vs. Macalisang,
22 SCRA 699 (1968).

^[36]
People vs. Apduhan, Jr., etc., et aI., 24 SCRA 798 (1968).

^[37]
People vs. Mobe, etc., et al., 81 Phil. 58 (1948); People vs.
Redoña, 87 Phil. 743 (1950).

^[38]
Brief for Accused-Appellant, 16-17.