PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO AMARO Y CRISOLOGO, ARMANDO PANTE Y REALDA AND FERNANDO SINGSON Y AMARO, ACCUSED. FERNANDO SINGSON Y AMARO, APPELLANT.

Ricardo C. Amaro, Armando R. Pante, and Fernando A. Singson were
charged with murder in an information which read as follows:

“That on or about the 27th day of September, 1987, at Barangay
San Agustin, Municipality of Pili, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this honorable court, the abovenamed accused,
conspiring, and confederating and mutually helping one another with evident
premeditation and treachery, and taking advantage of nighttime and of superior
strength and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously, attack, assault and stab with bolo and knives one AUGOSTO RONDA
thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds on his body which caused his
instantaneous death to the damage and prejudice of his heirs of the offended
party.

Contrary to law.”^[1]

Because Pante was able to escape from the custody of the police
and had remained at large, only Amaro and Singson were arraigned and pleaded
not guilty and stood trial.^[2] After
trial, the court a quo rendered judgment convicting the accused
of murder, the dispositive portion of which read:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused
Ricardo Amaro y Crisologo and Fernando Singson y Amaro GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt as principals by direct participation of the crime of Murder qualified by
abuse of superior strength defined and punished under Article 248, paragraph 1
thereof, of the Revised Penal Code without any generic aggravating circumstance
or mitigating circumstance present in the commission thereof, and thereby
sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. They are credited in full for the period of
their preventive imprisonment, if they agreed voluntarily in writing to abide
by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise,
with four-fifths thereof.

They are likewise ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of
Augosto Ronda the following amounts, to wit:

1. For the death of Augosto Ronda–P30,000;

2. For actual expenses– P16,918.55;

3. For loss of earning capacity there being no clear evidence of net earnings —
P20,000;

4. For moral damages–P5,000; and

5. The costs of the suit.

So Ordered.”^[3]

The trial court found that on 27 September 1987, at about 10:00 p.m., Teofisto Azuela
and Isagani Bernardino, both prosecution witnesses, were with Antet Remot and
Jorge Isinalada in front of a store located along the national highway near the
boundary line between the barangays of San Agustin and San Jose in the
municipality of Pili, Camarines Sur. Accused Fernando Singson, Ricardo Amaro, and Armando Pante, all armed
with bladed instruments, arrived and inquired about the whereabouts of Augosto
Ronda, Antet Remot, and Eleuterio Osea. Despite the presence of Antet Remot, Teofisto Azuela answered that the
three (3) named persons were not around; the accused left and proceeded in the
direction of the Azajar ricemill located along the national highway at San Agustin, Pili, Camarines Sur. Shortly thereafter, Isagani Bernardino and
Teofisto Azuela also left, one after the other, and proceeded in the same
direction taken by the accused. Along
the way, they stopped. At this point,
because of the illumination provided by the mercury lamps of the Azajar
ricemill compound and the lights of passing vehicles, the two (2) witnesses saw
the three (3) accused who were near the gate of the ricemill, and Augosto Ronda
who was then walking on the other side of the road approaching the
ricemill. The accused ran towards Ronda
and promptly hacked and stabbed him. Thereafter, the accused ran towards the Azajar ricemill and left Ronda
lying on the ground. On the basis of
these facts, the trial court convicted the accused of murder qualified by abuse
of superior strength.

Only accused Fernando Singson filed an appellant’s brief as
accused Ricardo Amaro withdrew his appeal and commenced serving his sentence.^[4]

In his brief, Fernando Singson made the following assignment of
errors:

1. That the trial court erred in finding [him]
liable as principal for the crime of murder;

2. That the trial court erred in finding [him]
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder;

3. That the trial court erred in giving full
credit to the conflicting testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution.^[5]

We have carefully scrutinized the evidence on record and find
that the guilt of the accused-appellant Fernando Singson was proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

Two (2) witnesses for the prosecution testified that the three
(3) accused had hacked and slashed and stabbed Augosto Ronda on the fateful
night of 27 September 1987. They were
able to identify the accused with certainty; their distance from the scene of
the crime, and the well lighted condition of that scene at that time, enabled
them to observe the commission of the crime and to recognize the identity of
the accused.

Isagani Bernardino testified that he had witnessed the crime from
a distance which, on ocular inspection, was found to be at about 65 to 70
meters.^[6]
Teofisto Azuela, on the other hand, witnessed the crime from a distance of
about 50 meters.^[7]

The scene of the crime was well illuminated. The moon was out that night.^[8]
The eight mercury lamps^[9] and
the municipal electric light post by the gate of the ricemill and just above
the precise situs of the crime^[10] were
on. As the crime was committed along
the highway, additional illumination came from the headlights of passing
vehicles.^[11]
The Court has held in the past that illumination produced by kerosene lamps,^[12]
or by a flashlight,^[13] was
sufficient to permit identification of a
person. In this case, the trial
court believed that illumination provided by mercury lamps and the moon and the
lights of passing vehicles was quite enough to allow the witnesses to see or recognize
the accused. We have no basis for
overturning this conclusion.

Furthermore, Teofisto Azuela and Isagani Bernardino saw the
events which immediately preceded the killing of Ronda, and those events point
to the accused as the perpetrators of the crime. Before Ronda was killed, the three (3) accused went to the store
where the witnesses were loitering around. Shortly after the accused left the store, Isagani Bernardino and
Teofisto Azuela followed them, and the two (2) observed the moves of the accused. They saw the accused, armed with bolos and
knives, leave the store and walk towards the Azajar ricemill and reach its
gate, and cross the road, and meet Ronda and hack and stab him, and leave him
lying by the roadside bleeding to death.

The testimonies of the two (2) witnesses were straightforward,
positive, and consistent. Teofisto
Azuela positively declared that the accused killed Augosto Ronda. He stated that:

“Q: What did the three accused do when Augosto Ronda was at a
distance of 15 meters from the gate of Azajar ricemill?

A: At about 15 meters from the gate of Azajar
ricemill, the accused saw Ronda through the lights coming from the cars and the
accused ran across the road and met Augosto Ronda.

x x x  x x x         x x x

Q: What happened when the three accused met ronda?

A: We saw a motion of hacking with a bolo and it was Augosto Ronda who was
being hacked.

Q: Who were those whom you saw in motion of hacking Augosto Ronda?

A: The three persons who came from the store.

COURT:

Q: Who were they?

A: Ricardo Amaro, Fernando Singson, and Amante Pante.”^[14]

Isagani Bernardino, on the other hand, testified thus:

“Q. What did the accused do upon reaching the gate of the Azajar
ricemill?

A. They ran across the road.

Q. And what did you observe them do when they ran across the road?

A. They were carrying bolo and Batangas knife.

x x x  x x x          x x x

Q. When the accused crossed on the opposite side of the road from the gate
of the Azajar ricemill, what happened, if any?

A. I saw them stab Augosto Ronda.

Q. Who was stabbing Augosto Ronda?

A. Ricardo Amaro and Singson were hacking.

Q. How about Pante, what did he do?

A. He was hacking Augosto Ronda.”^[15]

Moreover, no proof was adduced to show that the prosecution witnesses
were moved by some evil motive falsely to testify against the accused. The cross-examination ably conducted by
defense counsel failed to dent, however slightly, the credibility of the
witnesses.

The account of the eyewitnesses that the three (3) accused hacked
away at the victim simultaneously, was consistent with the testimony of the
medical officer who had prepared the necropsy report. That report stated that at least two (2) bladed instruments were
used in killing Ronda^[16] who
sustained not less than seventeen (17) stab and hack wounds.^[17]

From the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not err in
giving credence to the testimonies of the two (2) prosecution witnesses. The firmly settled rule is that appellate
courts will not disturb the factual findings of trial courts, since the trial
judge was in a better position to ascertain who should be believed and whose
testimony should be rejected considering that he saw and heard the testimony of
the witnesses in the course of the trial.^[18] In
the present case, we find no reason, and neither the judgment of the trial
court nor appellant’s brief provides us with one, to deviate from this rule.

Accused Fernando Singson urges the court to accept the statement
of Ricardo Amaro that he was alone when he stabbed to death the victim Augosto
Ronda.^[19]

Amaro’s statement or version of the facts, however, fails to
impress. If an accused invokes
self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that he had indeed
acted in self-defense.^[20]
Having admitted that he in fact killed the victim, the burden of proof is upon
the accused to prove the presence of the essential elements of this justifying
circumstance. Accused-appellant,
unfortunately, failed to discharge this burden.

Amaro testified that he had been chased by Ronda and two (2)
others who were all carrying bolos. Ronda allegedly hacked at him, but Amaro was able to parry the blow and
to wrest the bolo. In turn, he used Ronda’s bolo and slashed
and stabbed Ronda to death. Ronda’s companions,
seeing that he was grievously wounded, ran away. Amaro left and proceeded towards Naga City supposedly in order to
surrender himself. On his way, he was
arrested by pursuing policemen.^[21]

This defense is controverted by the necropsy report. First, the report stated that the body of
Ronda bore seventeen (17) lesions. It
has been held that a large number of wounds inflicted on the victim indicates
aggression on the part of the perpetrator^[22] for
it shows his determination to kill his victim.^[23] Thus,
appellant cannot credibly claim that unlawful aggression had come from the
victim. Second, the necropsy report
showed that the wounds of Ronda must have been inflicted by at least two (2)
kinds of bladed instru­ments, a knife and a bolo. This point necessarily traverses and contradicts Amaro’s version
that he had used a bolo only in killing Ronda, and that he alone had killed
Ronda.

Furthermore, Amaro’s story that the alleged killing implement was
the bolo of Ronda is not credible. As
the trial court observed, if the bolo he used in hacking Ronda belonged to the
latter, it was incumbent upon Amaro to see to it that the bolo was turned over
to the authorities and to have the same presented in court as evidence; its
non-production was fatal to the defense.^[24] It
may be observed that when Amaro was arrested, there was found in his
possession, not a bolo, but a knife. If
at that time, he was in fact on his way to surrender immediately after the
killing of Ronda, it is only natural that he would have carried the instrument
he allegedly used in killing Ronda. It
is thus noteworthy that he was then carrying a knife, one of the two (2) types
of instruments used in killing Ronda.

Fernando Singson raised the defense of alibi, contending that, on
the date and time that Ronda was killed, he (Singson) was with Armando Pante in
the house of Leoncio Pante located at Cadlan, Pili. From the time he arrived at 5:00 p.m. at Leoncio Pante’s house up
to 4:00 p.m. the following morning when he was arrested, Singson said, he never
left the house.^[25]

As a rule, alibi is an inherently weak defense; it cannot prevail
over the positive identification of the accused by the witnesses for the
prosecution.^[26]
For alibi to be given credence, it is not enough to prove that the accused was
somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must also demonstrate that it
was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime or
within its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.^[27]

In the present case, the defense of alibi must fail. Leoncio Pante testified that his house is
only about three (3) kilometers from the scene of the crime and that the
distance can be negotiated non-stop in about two (2) minutes by a motor
vehicle.^[28]
The distance of the house from the situs of the crime cannot establish the
physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime or within its
immediate vicinity, when Ronda was killed. Finally, in the light of the unrebutted testimony of the prosecution
witnesses positively identifying Fernando Singson as one of the wrongdoers, the
defense of alibi is totally inadequate.

Lastly, the trial court correctly held that the killing of Ronda
was qualified by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength. This qualifying circumstance
is properly considered whenever there is patent inequality of forces between
the victim and the aggressors, and a clear superiority of strength on the part
of the aggressor, mobilized and taken advantage of by him in the commission of
the crime. In addition to evaluating
the relative physical conditions of the protagonists and the arms or weapons
employed by both sides, it is also necessary to analyze the incidents and
episodes constituting the development of the event.^[29]

In the present case, the killing of Ronda was not a sudden and
impulsive whim on the part of the accused; it was a deliberate act of deploying
and exercising superior force against Ronda. Appellant Fernando Singson, Ricardo Amaro, and Fernando Pante armed
themselves with knives and bolos and set out to kill their victim. Together, the three (3) armed men looked for
Ronda at the store. Together they went
to the Azajar ricemill. When the three
(3) found Augosto Ronda, they proceeded concertedly to attack him. The accused clearly enjoyed superiority in
number and in arms, and they utilized this in assaulting and slaying a lone and
unarmed Ronda. The trial court,
accordingly, did not err in finding this qualifying circumstance present. In People v. Verzo,^[30]
this Court held that abuse of superior strength may be appreciated in a murder case where three (3) persons
wielding bolos killed an unarmed victim.

The trial court erred, however, in awarding P30,000.00 as
indemnity for death to the heirs of Augosto Ronda. In the light of the Resolution of the Court En Banc
dated 30 August 1990,^[31]
and other more recent jurisprudence, the amount of indemnity should be
P50,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Regional
Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, finding accused appellant Fernando Singson
guilty, is hereby AFFIRMED, with
the sole modification that the indemnity for death to be paid by the appellant
is INCREASED to P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Romero, Melo, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Records, p. 1.

^[2]
Trial Court Decision, p. 1; Rollo, p. 25.

^[3]
Id., pp. 14-15; Rollo, pp. 38-39.

^[4]
Resolution of 27 January 1993, Rollo, p. 69.

^[5]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 11; Rollo, p. 94.

^[6]
TSN, August 30, 1988, p. 8; Records, p. 131.

^[7]
TSN, April 13, 1988, p. 16; Records, p. 44.

^[8]
TSN, 30 August 1988, p. 3; Records, p. 126.

^[9]
Id., p. 8; Records, p. 131.

^[10]
TSN, 6 July 1988, p. 13; Records, p. 102.

^[11]
Id., 17; Records, p. 106.

^[12]
People vs. Penillos, 205 SCRA 546 [1992].

^[13]
People vs. Loste, 201 SCRA 614 (1991).

^[14]
TSN, 13 April 1988, pp. 16-17; Records, pp. 44-45.

^[15]
TSN, 6 July 1988, pp. 10-11; Records, pp. 99-100.

^[16]
TSN, 7 March 1988, p. 17; Records, p. 17.

^[17]
See, Id., pp. 17-27; Records, pp. 17-27.

^[18]
People vs. Simon, 209 SCRA 148 (1992); People vs. Magaluna, 205
SCRA 266 (1992); Caubang vs. People, 210 SCRA 371 (1992).

^[19]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 11; Rollo, p. 94.

^[20]
People vs. Arroyo, 201 SCRA 616 (1991); People vs. Nabayra, 203
SCRA 75 (1991).

^[21]
Trial Court Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 30.

^[22]
People vs. Sarense, 214 SCRA 780 (1992).

^[23]
People v. Sagadsad, 215 SCRA 641 (1992).

^[24]
Trial Court Decision, p. 9; Rollo, p. 33.

^[25]
Id., pp. 6-7; Rollo, pp. 6-7.

^[26]
People vs. Dela Cruz, 207 SCRA 632 (1992); People vs. Gelotin,
208 SCRA 758 (1992).

^[27]
People vs. Devaras, 205 SCRA 676 (1992).

^[28]
TSN, 12 May 1989, p. 4; Records, p. 163.

^[29]
People v. Revillame, G.R. Nos. 110714-15, 3 March 1994, citing People v.
Cabiling, 74 SCRA 285 (1976).

^[30]
21 SCRA 1403 (1967).

^[31]
See People v. Sison, 189 SCRA 643 (1990).