PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ZOSIMO ALABASO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused-appellant was charged with murder in an information^[1] filed by 4th Assistant Provincial
Fiscal Virgilio G. Caballero of San
Jose City, Nueva Ecija, which reads as follows:

“That on or about the 5th day of November, 1987, at nighttime,
at Barangay Sampalukan,
Municipality of Bongabon, Province of Nueva Ecija, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
with the intention to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, with
cruelty and by taking advantage of the (sic) nighttime and the situation that
the victim was weak due to drunkenness rendering said victim to be helpless,
deliberately attack, assault and beat with the use of blunt instrument one
ANGEL GONZALES y LINSANGAN, thereby inflicting fatal wounds and injuries that
killed the victim, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said Angel
Gonzales y Linsangan.”

Upon arraignment, accused Zosimo Alabaso entered a plea of “not guilty.” Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued
and on 19 December 1989,
the trial court rendered its decision,^[2]
the dispositive portion of which reads thus:

“WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of murder, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay indemnity of
P30,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus costs.

SO ORDERED.”

Disagreeing with the decision, accused Zosimo
Alabaso interposed the present appeal, assigning the
following errors allegedly committed by the trial court:

I.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND
CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND IN DISREGARDING
THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE.

II.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED­-APPELLANT ZOSIMO ALABASO GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME
OF MURDER DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.^[3]

The facts, according to the People’s Brief, are as follows:

“The victim, Angel Gonzales, and appellant were business
partners in the buying and selling of tricycles (TSN, Aug. 24, 1989, p. 7).  On November
5, 1987, at 5:00 o’clock
in the after­noon, Angel was at his house in Barangay
Cruz, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, fixing the tricycle of his parents when appellant
arrived thereat to invite him to go to the house of a certain Andres Velarde (Ibid., p. 5).  They left Angel’s house using Angel’s
tricycle with appellant on the driver’s seat (TSN, Sept. 13, 1989, p. 4).  Angel and appellant arrived at Velarde’s house about 6:30
o’clock in the evening (Ibid., p. 3).  The partners asked Velarde
to buy two (2) bottles of Ginebra San Miguel to toast
the sale of a sidecar they had earlier negotiated (Ibid.).  While the three (3) men were thus drinking,
an argument ensued between Angel and appellant (Ibid., p. 6).  Appelant was trying
to collect P400.00 from Angel as his commission in the sale of the sidecar, but
Angel would only give him P200.00 (Ibid.). 
When Angel said that appellant was entitled to no more than P200.00 as
commission, appellant got angry and stood up (Ibid.).  He then took out the gun tucked inside the
waist of his pants and threatened to fire the same (Ibid.).  He was pacified only when told that the barangay captain who was a neighbor of Valarde
might arrest him (Ibid.).

The trio continued drinking until Angel became so drunk that he
becomes [sic] sleepy (Ibid.).  It was then that appellant insisted on
bringing Angel home (Ibid.).  Angel and
appellant left the Velarde house around 7:30 o’clock p.m. (Ibid., p. 8).  The two (2) boarded Angel’s tricycle with the
appellant again taking the driver’s seat and Angel reclining on the passenger’s
seat (Ibid., p. 7).  When the two reached
Barangay Sinampalukan,
appellant stopped the tricycle and hit Angel with a blunt instrument several
times on the head (Ibid., p. 20).  As a
result, Angel died of ‘hemmorrhage and intra-cranial
injuries to the brain’ (Exhibit ‘A-1’).^[4]

The accused-appellant admits that he and the deceased were business partners in the buy and sell of motorcycles for almost
a year; that they had a drinking session on 5 November 1987 from 12:00 to 5:00
o’clock in the afternoon, first in Barangay
Commercial, Bongabong,
Nueva Ecija, and later,
in the house of Andy Velarde at Barangay Santor for more or less another hour.  He further admits
that after their drinking spree, he and the victim headed for home by boarding
the latter’s tricycle which he drove. 
He, however, denies killing Angel Gonzales and submits the following
version of the incident:

“x x x
(W)hen the tricycle was between Brgy. Curva and Brgy. Cruz, three (3)
persons blocked its way.  They were carryng long firearms and wanted to be taken to Sapang Tuyo.  Zosimo Alabaso told them that it was already dark and that the
tricycle belongs to Angel Gonzales.  A
heated argument ensued between Angel Gonzales and the three (3) persons when he
refused what they wanted.  Then one of
them hit Zosimo Alabaso in
his stomach with the muzzle of a rifle. 
He lost consciousness.  When Zosimo Alabaso regained
consciousness later on, he saw Angel Gonzales slumped on the ground in front of
the tricycle.  The three (3) persons were
already far away when he saw them.  He
then boarded Angel Gonzales, who was heard to be moaning, into the tricycle and
drove the same to the Bongabon
District Hospital
where, not long afterwards, the doctor in attendance pronounced that he was
already dead.”^[5]

The Court has consistently ruled that circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction if:  (a) there
is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as
to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.^[6]

Here, the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which
leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt,
to wit:

“One circumstance is that at 5:00
p.m. of November 5, 1987,
the accused and the complainant, who are business partners in buying and
selling of tricycles, together went to the house of Andres Velarde
in Brgy. Santor, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, arriving there at about 6:30 p.m.  They
were riding on the tricycle of the complainant. 
The three (3) of them had a drinking spree for more or less one (1)
hour.  After they finished two (2)
bottles of gin, the complainant became groggy and had to lay down in bed.  So the accused insisted that he bring the
complainant home to the latter’s house in Brgy. Cruz,
Bongabon, Nueva Ecija.  The
complainant, upon being persuaded by the accused, was loaded by the accused on
the passenger’ (sic) seat of the same tricycle they used earlier and then drove
the same towards Brgy. Cruz.  These facts were testified to by the
prosecution witness Andres Velarde and the accused
himself.

Another circumstance is that while the said tricycle was passing
thru Brgy. Curva, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, at more or less 7:30 p.m. that same day, the accused
was observed to be driving the same at normal speed while the complainant was
in reclining position with his head on the back rest of the passenger’s seat
thereof.  This was testified to by
prosecution witness Ramon Gonzales who happened to be in his compadre’s house at the time in that place.

Another circumstance as testified to by prosecution witness Eugenio Matutino, is that at
about 7:30 p.m. of November 5, 1987, he was at (sic) town of Bongabon,
Nueva Ecija, waiting
for a tricycle for (sic) home in Brgy. Cruz of that
municipality.  As the tricycle he was
able to take (sic) reached Brgy. Sampalukan,
of the same municipality, the light thereof was focused on a scene of a
brawl.  He saw the accused hitting
somebody with an object.  At that time,
he was unable to recognize the person being hit.  It was only after reaching the gate of his
house when he heard from a passing tricycle that the complainant was already
dead and therefore he concluded that that person he saw being hit way back by
the accused was the complainant.

One more circumstance is that the underlying causes of the death of
the complainant, according to Dr. Mario D. Cajucom
who examined his body is ‘BLOWS ON THE HEAD, blunt instrument’ (Exh. A).”^[7]

In Aldeguer,^[8]
we said that in determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to
support a conviction, each case is to be determined on its own peculiar
circumstances and all the facts and circumstances are to be considered together
as a whole and, when so considered, may be sufficient to support a conviction,
although one or more of the facts taken separately might not be sufficient for
this purpose.  No general rule has been
formulated as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which will suffice for
any case.  What is required is that the
circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, and at the same time,
inconsistent with the hypothesis that the accused is innocent.  The aforequoted circumstances proved by the
prosecution more than meet the quantum of proof sufficient to support a
conviction.

The accused–appellant’s flight also belies his claim of
innocence.  His arrest was effected only
on 26 June 1989, or one (1)
year and seven (7) months after
the incident happened, because he went into hiding.  The guilty flee when no man pursueth but the innocent are as bold as a lion.^[9]

WHEREFORE, the
decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with
the sole modification that the indemnity to the heirs of the offended party is hereby
increased to P50,000.00, with costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Rollo, 8

^[2]
“The People of the Philippines vs. Zosimo
Alabaso alias “Boy Pilay,”
Criminal Case No. 0046-P, Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch
40, Palayan City, Conrado
P. Labrador, Judge; Rollo, 32

^[3]
Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, 42

^[4]
Appellee’s Brief; Rollo,
52-54

^[5]
Decision, supra, note 2, at 28

^[6]
People v. Agan, G.R. No. 77713, February 6,
1990; People v. Yagong, G.R. No. 77088,
January 29, 1990; People v. Dumpe, G.R. Nos.
80110-11, March 22, 1990; People v. Aldeguer,
G.R. No. L-47991, April 3, 1990

^[7]
Decision, supra, note 2, at 29-31

^[8]
People v. Aldeguer, G.R. No. L-47991, April 3, 1990

^[9]
People v. Ablao, G.R. No. 69184, March 26,
1990