PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GREGORIO SAGADSAD, JESUS ATENDIDO, OSIAS ATENDIDO, RAMON ATENDIDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, ALINER ATENDIDO) MANUEL ATENDIDO) AT LA…

Before Us is the appeal from the decision dated July 5, 1988 of
the Regional Trial Court of the Fifth Judicial Region (Branch XLIV, Masbate,
Masbate) in its Criminal Case No. 3419, which found herein accused?appellants
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced them to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, except for Ramon
Atendido who was meted out the penalty
of ten years and one day of Prision Mayor to seventeen years and four months of Reclusion
Temporal. All the accused were
likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) and to pay the costs of suit (Original Record, Decision, p. 175).

Accused-appellants were charged in an information filed on August
31, 1981 which reads as follows:

“That on or about April 16, 1981, in the afternoon thereof, at
Barangay Matugnao, Municipality of Palanas, 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, strike with stone, beat with a piece of bamboo
pole, hack with a bolo and stab with a knife one Alicio Bulan, hitting the
latter on the different parts of the body, thereby inflicting wounds which
directly caused his instantaneous death.

Contrary to law.” (p. 7, Rollo; p.1, Original Record)

Gregorio Sagadsad and the brothers Jesus, Osias, and Ramon
Atendido were later apprehended by the authorities, while Manuel and Aliner
Atendido remained at large. Upon
arraignment, accused-appellants entered a plea of not guilty to the crime
charged (Original Record, p. 22), and at the ensuing trial, the prosecution
presented the following witnesses:

Dr. Ernesto Tamayo, the Municipal Health
Officer of Dimasalang, Masbate who testified that he conducted a post-mortem examination
on the body of the victim, Alicio Bulan. Based on his findings, he explained that the hematomas at the root of
the nose, at the mouth and at the forehead could have been caused by hard blunt
instruments like a stone and a bamboo pole and that the hack and stab wounds
were probably caused by sharp bladed instruments like a bolo and a knife. Dr. Tamayo considered most of the said
wounds as fatal. In the death
certificate which he issued, he confirmed that the death of the victim was due
to “multiple hacking wounds, scalp wounds and multiple stab wounds.”

On cross-examination, Dr. Tamayo stated that he was not informed
where the incident involving the victim occurred. He added that the hack and stab wounds could have been caused by
the same sharp bladed instrument and inflicted by only one or several persons. (tsn, November 24, 1982, pp. 2-5; 6-7).

Fortunato Tamayo, a resident of Bo.
Nipa, Palanas, Masbate and the eyewitness of the prosecution, declared that he
knew the accused as he frequented their place when he was not yet married. On
April 16, 1981, he went to
Matugnao, Palanas, Masbate to lay bets on a cockfight being sponsored by the
Barangay Captain, one of the accused herein, Ramon Atendido. Alicia Bulan and Rodito Alutaya were already
there, participating in the “hantak” and in the cockfight. At about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, the
witness invited Bulan and Alutaya to go home with him. As they were about to leave, Bulan was
suddenly hit on the face by a stone thrown by Gregorio Sagadsad. As Bulan staggered, Aliner Atendido struck
him at the back of his head with a bamboo pole about two arms length. Bulan fell to the ground face down, then
Osias Atendido hacked him at the side of the right temple with a bolo. At this point, Barangay Captain Ramon
Atendido told a group “to kill him (Bulan) and I will take care of
everything.” Thus, Manuel Atendido stabbed Bulan with a hunting
knife. Fortunato claimed that he saw
all these from a distance of about twenty meters. Then he heard Osias say, “where are the companions of the
victim and we will kill them so that they could not report the incident.”
Scared, Fortunato ran and upon reaching his home, he and Rogelio Tamayo went to
Andresito Tamayo to summon the police authorities.

On cross-examination, Fortunato stressed that the incident
occurred at the yard of Ramon Atendido’s residence. (tsn, July 25, 1983, pp. 10-29).

Cpl. Ariel Batiancela, a
member of the Integrated National Police assigned at Palanas Police Station,
testified that on the night of April 16, 1981, he conducted an investigation of
the same incident during which Ramon Atendido voluntarily surrendered to him
after admitting that he alone killed the victim. Except for the said accused and his mother, Cpl. Batiancela was
not able to interrogate any other person. Thereafter, he brought Ramon Atendido to the police station. He did not, however, file the case at the
Fiscal’s office.

When cross-examined, Cpl. Batiancela stated that according to
Ramon Atendido, there was no “hantak” or cockfight on that fateful
day; that the victim Alicio Bulan and Fortunato Tamayo went to his (Ramon
Atendido’s) house to retrieve the machete which was confiscated during a dance,
and that the other accused were not around when Ramon hacked the victim to
death. (tsn, August 29, 1983,
pp. 32-39).

Gregorio Bulan, the father of the victim, declared
that Andresito Tamayo informed him of his son’s fate at the hands of Gregorio
Sagadsad and the brothers Ramon, Jesus and Aliner Atendido. He immediately
verified the incident and he found out that his son was hacked, stoned and stabbed to death. The witness admitted that he was not able to
report the same to the police authorities because his wife fainted and he had
to attend to her. The witness also
mentioned that Pat. Batiancela, a nephew of the accused Atendidos and a
policeman assigned at Palanas Police Station, approached him and his wife and
proposed to settle the case amicably, saying that the accused were offering the
sum of P3,000.00 for the death of their son. At that time, the accused were already in jail.

In court, the witness
specifically asked for the sums of P18,000.00, P1,000.00 and P500.00 for
damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, respectively. (tsn, June 8, 1984, pp. 41-48).

The defense, on the other hand, interposed denial and
self-defense (only with respect to Ramon Atendido) and presented seven
witnesses.

Gregorio Sagadsad, one of the accused, strongly
denied the charge. He said that he wen
to Yati, Liloan, Cebu City on April 9, 1981
with Jesus Atendido to sell buri midribs. He stayed there for about three weeks and returned to Matugnao in the
month of May. He surmised that he was
implicated in the crime because
he was the barangay tanod who confiscated the weapon Bulan used in stabbing a
person during a benefit dance sometime in February, 1981.

When cross-examined, Sagadsad admitted, however, that he did not
actually see Bulan stab a certain Buscay but that the latter’s uncle merely
told him so. Under threats of arrest,
Bulan surrendered the knife to him. Sagadsad affirmed that the Barangay Captain did not bring Bulan to the
police station but merely turned over the said knife to the authorities.

Further, Sagadsad declared that he had no misunderstandings with
Fortunato Tamayo and wondered what prompted the latter to testify against
him. (tsn, June 16, 1986, pp. 51-60).

Vicente Caayon, a fisherman and a resident of
Magtugnao, averred that on the day in question, he was gathering tuba from a
coconut tree inside Ramon Atendido’s yard. At about 6:00 o’clock in the evening, Bulan arrived, together with Ramon
Tamayo, shouting “who is brave?” and demanding the return of his
weapon which Ramon allegedly confiscated from him. The latter simply replied that the said weapon was already turned
over to the Station Commander. Angered,
Bulan who was armed with a bolo, attempted to go up the stairs of Ramon’s house
but he was hit by a stone and fell down. He immediately stood up as Ramon had also armed himself with a bolo. Gregorio Sagadsad, Manuel and Jesus Atendido
were not around by then. Caayon said
that one Nemesia Alfornon also witnessed the incident because she was inside
Ramon’s house at that time.

On cross-examination, Caayon stated that while atop the coconut
tree, he saw all that transpired inside the house through the open door. Ramon’s wife and children including Alfornon
were crying and shouting for help. Ramon then accepted Bulan’s challenge and was not wounded at all during
the fight. Bulan, however, was hit on
the head and was consequently killed inside Ramon’s house. After a week, Ramon came to him and told him
to testify in court (tsn, November 4, 1986, pp. 62-78).

Nemesia Alfornon, a resident of
Lipata, Palanas, Masbate, corroborated Caayon’s testimony as to the time of
arrival of the victim and his encounter with Ramon Atendido. Alfornon also asserted that she did not see
Gregorio Sagadsad and Jesus and Osias Atendido
during the incident.

When cross-examined, she said that on that fateful day, her
neighbor’s cornmill which she normally used to grind her corn, was out of order
so she went to Ramon Atendido’s house in Matugnao, about a
kilometer away from Lipata. Alfornon
added that the incident took place in
the yard. When Ramon hacked the victim,
Ramon Tamayo fled and she, too, jumped
over the window where she was
watching the brawl, and ran away. Upon reaching her home, she narrated the
event to her husband. The following morning, she learned that
Bulan was already dead and that
Ramon Atendido had surrendered to
the authorities. Eventually, Ramon came
to see her and asked her to
testify in court. (tsn, December 9,
1986, pp. 80-93).

Jesus Atendido, another accused in the instant
case, testified that he lived in his own house in Matugnao about 100 meters from the house of his elder
brother Ramon. On April 9, 1981, he
left for Cebu City to work at
Pier 4. He stayed there for two months
and then returned to Matugnao in June.

Upon cross-examination, Jesus maintained that since 1979, he had
been employed by Pepsi Cola Bottling Co.
to load and unload softdrinks to and from any vessel. When he got
married in 1980, he still continued
his work therein while his wife remained in Matugnao. Jesus said he went home
only after he received his salary on a weekly, sometimes monthly or
bi-monthly basis. As he did not receive
his salary for the month of
April, he worked for two more months before he went back to Matugnao. Jesus claimed that his manager Tomas Codera
could attest to his declarations. Finally, Jesus denied being acquainted with
Fortunato Tamayo, thus he was surprised at his implication in the crime
charged. (tsn, December 9, 1986, pp. 93-102).

Osias Atendido, an elder brother of Jesus and also one of the accused, likewise
refuted his involvement in the crime. He said that for over a month beginning on
April 2, 1981, he was in Nursery, Masbate, Masbate, helping Wilfredo Halili, a
mason, in the construction of a health center. He admitted though, that he went home to Matugnao on weekends. Osias claimed that he
came to know of the incident when he
was already arrested.

When cross-examined, he
said that his house was about a kilometer away from his brother Ramon’s
house. Osias also added that he had no previous quarrels with Fortunato Tamayo, said to be the
victim’s uncle. (tsn, February 11, 1987, pp. 104-109).

Ramon Atendido, the self-confessed assailant herein, branded Fortunato Tamayo’s version
as a blatant lie. On the other hand, he
affirmed the testimony of both Caayon and Alfornon. Ramon further stated
that Bulan remarked, “Captain, get
down, I will kill you.” Intending to frighten him off, Ramon threw a stone
at Bulan. Undaunted, the latter went up
to the porch and Ramon was then compelled to fight back in self-defense. Ramon emphatically stressed that his
brothers Jesus, Aliner, and Osias as well as Gregorio Sagadsad were not present
at that time. After the incident, he
surrendered to Cpl. Ariel Batiancela.

On cross-examination,
Ramon said that Bulan got angry upon learning that his weapon was already
turned over to the authorities. It was
then that Bulan issued the challenge which Ramon eventually accepted. In the Meantime, Ramon Tamayo, Bulan’s
alleged companion, stayed at the yard and did nothing at all while the fight
was going on. Ramon confessed that he
made sure Bulan would die and not leave that place alive. He also explained that he sustained no
injury because Bulan missed his thrusts owing to the blood oozing from
him. Upon his surrender, he told the
police that he killed Bulan because the latter challenged him to do so. (tsn, March 18, 1987, pp. 111-126).

Wilfredo Balile, the last defense witness, testified
that Osias Atendido helped him in carpentry works at the construction of a
health center at Nursery, Masbate,
Masbate. They were both engaged in the said
task from February until the completion of the center in May, 1981. Specifically on April 16 of the same year, a
Holy Thursday, he and Osias worked only up to 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon,
after which he (Wilfredo) proceeded to the place of a certain Pabling Verano. There was no available transportation the next day so he went home to Nabangig, Palanas, Masbate, on Saturday, April 18,
1981. (tsn, March 14, 1988, pp.
128-134).

On July 5, 1988, the trial court rendered its decision finding all the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged (pp. 20-29, Rollo). Their subsequent motion for reconsideration
was denied (p. 4, ibid.). Hence, the
instant appeal.

The pivotal issue in the
case at bar hinges on the credibility of witnesses, thus Our effort to
synthesize their testimony.

In praying for a reversal
of the trial court’s decision, counsel for appellants assails the same by contending that a) Fortunato Tamayo’s testimony was not
corroborated and thus, is not credible at all as it was Ramon Tamayo who was
actually the victim’s companion on that fateful day; b) Ramon Atendido killed
the victim in self-defense; c) the alibis of the other accused as well as the testimony of Cpl. Batiancela should have been considered by the
court; and lastly, d) conspiracy was
not established by sufficient
proof.

It is readily evident
that these are factual concerns, and in this regard, it is essential to recall
the principle that the findings of the trial court are entitled to
the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in
the absence of any showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which,
if considered, would have affected the result of the case. (People v. Florida,
G.R. No. 90254, September 24, 1992 and other cases cited therein).

A careful scrutiny
of the records reveals that the case at bar is not an exception. The appeal, therefore, must fail.

Firstly, We find the testimony of Fortunato Tamayo to be candid,
frank, and straightforward. There is
nothing therein that appears to be
unnatural or illogical. More
importantly, Fortunato’s positive identification of accused-appellants and
their respective participation in the gruesome crime have not been overturned
as the consequences thereof were corroborated by the medical findings of Dr.
Ernesto Tamayo, another prosecution witness. Nevertheless, in an attempt to discredit him, the defense states that
Fortunato should not be believed because he is an uncle of the victim. It has long been settled though that
relationship between the victim and the witness does not necessarily undermine
the credibility of the witness. It is
an established and conceded rule that the mere fact that the witness is a
relative is not a valid or sufficient ground to disregard the former’s
testimony nor does it render the same less worthy of credit, in the absence of
any ill motive. (People v.
De Guzman, 194
SCRA 628 [1991]). Since there was no
evidence as to the existence of such motive, Fortunato’s testimony was
rightfully given full faith and credit. (People v. Manzanares, 179 SCRA 427 (1989]). In yet another attempt to impeach Fortunato,
the defense likewise asserts that had the prosecution presented Ramon Tamayo,
allegedly the true companion of the victim, he could have strongly bolstered the account of
accused-appellants. If this is so, why
then did the defense not call
Tamayo to testify as its own witness? The fact that it did not, reflects
on its own negligence or probably apprehension that Ramon Tamayo’s testimony
would not really advance the cause of accused-appellants. (People
v. Abaya, 185 SCRA 422 [1990]).

Secondly, Ramon Atendido’s invocation of self-defense is negated
by the physical evidence in the case. Specifically, the number of wounds indicates that his act was no longer
an act of self-defense but a determined effort to kill his victim (People
v. Maceda, 197 SCRA 502 [1991]). Even more incriminatory is the testimonial evidence at hand. Thus, We find the following categorical
statements in Ramon Atendido’s testimony:

“Q.  And
that alone could kill Alicio Bulan? The
wound that he sustained on his stomach could kill him, is that correct?

A.   When I started to hack
him, I made sure that he will die,
so that he could not retaliate because he might kill the members of my family.

Q.  So you really
make (sic) sure that he could not get out (sic) that place
alive?

A.   Yes Sir.

(tsn, March 18, 1987,
pp. 123-124; Underscoring supplied.)

Certainly, a man who has set in his heart the decision to take
away another man’s life does not
deserve the benevolence of this Court.

We shall now proceed to evaluate the alibi of the other
accused. The rule is that the defense
of alibi is considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not
only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it is easily
fabricated. For alibi as defense to
overcome the positive identification of the prosecution, it must satisfy the
test of “full, clear and satisfactory evidence.” This test requires
not only proof that the accused was somewhere else other than the scene of the
crime but clear and convincing proof of physical impossibility for the accused
to have been at the place of the
commission of the crime. (People
v. Valiente, G.R. No. 103269, September 2, 1992). This, the defense failed to
demonstrate. No evidence was presented
to prove that it was virtually impossible for the accused-appellants to have
been at the scene of the crime on the day in question. Even the explanation proferred by Gregorio
Sagadsad and Osias Atendido appears to be too superficial to be considered worthy of belief. Gregorio Sagadsad’s alleged stay with his
brother at Tabuan, Cebu City, seems to be more of an afterthought as it was
unsubstantiated by any proof. On the
other hand, Wilfredo Balile who testified in favor of Osias Atendido,
distinctly stated that on that fateful day, their work at the construction site
in Nursery, Masbate, was only up to 2 o’clock in the afternoon, being a Holy Thursday. From such time onwards, Osias’ whereabouts
remained unconfirmed. It was highly
probable that he had already gone home
to Matugnao by then. Certainly, it is
more likely for Gregorio and Osias to have spent the rest of the Holy Week with
their respective families. Indeed,
evidence to be believed must not
only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in
itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as
probable under the circumstances. (People
v. Nabayra, 203 SCRA 81 [1991]). The situation is different, however, in the case of Jesus Atendido. We agree with the Solicitor General’s
Comment in this regard:

“The trial court found Jesus Atendido in conspiracy with the
other appellants. It must be observed,
however, that there is no evidence on record to prove even his presence at the
scene of the crime. He should,
therefore, be acquitted. (p. 84,
Rollo).

Anent Pat. Batiancela’s testimony, suffice it   to say that the same is purely hearsay as
his knowledge of the incident was entirely supplied by the accused Ramon
Atendido.

Finally, We hold that as far as Gregorio Sagadsad and Ramon and
Osias Atendido, are concerned, conspiracy has been sufficiently
established. No proof is more eloquent
than the multiple wounds they inflicted in their simultaneous attack on the hapless victim. Treachery and abuse of superior strength unmistakably attended the
commission of the offense.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed judgment
is AFFIRMED subject to the following modifications: a) Jesus
Atendido is hereby ACQUITTED; and b) the civil indemnity is increased from P30,000 to P50,000 in accordance
with Our latest pronouncements.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Acting C.J., (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ.,
concur.