PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO RIVERA, SAILITO DELA CRUZ, FERNANDO VISO AND MELITO CATARUNGAN, ACCUSED, ANTONIO RIVERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate,
Branch 47 finding Antonio Rivera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, it having been established beyond reasonable doubt that
accused Antonio Rivera committed the offense charged with the aid of his
companions (who are still at large), namely, Sailito dela Cruz, Fernando Viso
and Melito Catarungan, employing superior strength
in the process, which aggravating circumstance is not offset by any
mitigating circumstance, said Antonio Rivera is penalized under Article 248
(par. 1) of the Revised Penal code and is hereby sentenced to the extreme
penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the
amount of P30,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; to
suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law; and to pay the costs. xxx” (Decision, p. 5)

Co-accused Sailito dela Cruz, Fernando Viso and Melito Catarungan
have up to the present remained at large.

The facts established by the prosecution and accepted by the
trial court as basis for the decision, are summarized as follows:

In the evening of August 2, 1986, Melchor and Loreto Botero,
together with Rolando Sombese and some women, attended a dance party at the plaza of Bgy. del Rosario in Uson,
Masbate. At about 11:00 o’clock that
evening while the dance was in progress, Fernando Viso boxed Rolando, who was
seated on a bench beside Melchor and two women. Then Antonio Rivera, armed with a bladed weapon, stabbed Melchor,
who was hit in his left nipple. Sailito
followed suit and likewise with his bladed weapon stabbed Melchor on his left
arm. Thereafter, Sailito dela Cruz,
Fernando Viso and Melito Catarungan dragged Melchor to the other side of the road
about two meters away and there they took turns in stabbing Melchor to
death. (pp. 129-136, tsn., July 13,
1987)

When the assailants left, Rolando immediately reported the
incident to the barangay authorities. Early next morning, Pat. Andaya investigated the crime scene and there
he learned from Rolando and Loreto that Antonio, Sailito, Melito and another
person whose name he could not remember had killed Melchor. (pp. 3-­4, tsn., March 15, 1988).

At the trial, Dr. Erlinda V. Sanchez who conducted the postmortem
examination of the cadaver of the victim, testified: that the victim died of shock secondary to hemorrhage caused by
multiple stab and incised wounds: that
he found four stab wounds and seven incised wounds, to wit:

“Stab wounds:

a)  1 1/2 inches wide, 4th intercostal space,
beside the left nipple, along the clavicular line, penetrating thru the thorax,
with exit at posterior thorax, beside the lower angle of the left scapula

b)  1 inch wide, penetrating 2 inches below the
left nipple

c)  1 inch wide, penetrating 5th ICS, along the
anterior axillary line left side

d)  2
inches wide, 3 inches deep, left forearm, proximal 3rd, just below the
deltoid muscle

“Incised Wounds:

a)  2 inches long, sternum, lower portion

b)  2 inches long left forearm, postero-nedial
aspect, middle 3rd

c)  2 inches long, left forearm, antero-lateral
aspect, middle 3rd

d)  2 inches long, left forearm, antero-lateral
aspect, middle 3rd, 1 1/2 inches from the above wound (c)

e)  1 1/2 inches long right forearm, posterior
aspect, middle 3rd

f)   1 1/2 inches long, anterior portion middle
3rd, right forearm

g)  1 inch long, anterior portion, middle portion,
right forearm, 2 inches from the above wound (f).

that wound letter B below the left nipple
could be fatal because it is near the heart; that the victim’s wounds could
have been inflicted by one or more persons; and that the weapons used are sharp
pointed instruments, or possibly a sharp pointed bolo. (pp. 149-158, tsn., September 15, 1987).

The appellant, on the other hand, denied participation in the
commission of the crime and claimed that when the incident happened on that
fateful night, he was asleep in the house of his parents at Bgy. Mongahay which
is about 5 kilometers away from the scene of the crime; that earlier that day,
he got tired of plowing the fields so he stayed at home and rested; that he
never attended a dance party in Bgy. del Rosario; and that he does not know the
victim Melchor nor any of his co-accused.. (pp. 174-177, tsn., October 3, 1989).

Antonio’s alibi was corroborated by his friend, Domingo Garcia,
who testified that at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of August 2, 1986, he
dropped by Antonio’s house but the latter refused to go to the dance party in
Bgy. del Rosario because he was tired; that he (Domingo) attended said dance
party and stayed until past midnight but nothing unusual happened that night;
and that he learned about the incident when he went to the plaza to play
basketball the next day. (pp. 89-93, tsn.,
October 4, 1989).

In this appeal, Antonio claims that the trial court erred in
disregarding his alibi and in not acquitting him of the crime charged. Among others, he claims that Rolando’s
testimony is improbable and contrary to human experience because he declared
that no commotion took place when the stabbing incident happened when
ordinarily, such an incident would send people scampering for safety.

We disagree.

Rolando’s positive identification of Antonio as one of the
assailants of Melchor is not rendered doubtful by the circumstance that no
frenzied commotion took place during the stabbing incident. Rolando could well identify Antonio because
the place was then well-lighted, he was perilously close to Melchor when the
incident occurred, and he was familiar with Antonio and the latter’s
company. Vividly, Rolando narrated:

Q.   And
you told us that you were boxed by Fernando Viso, were you hit?

A.    Yes,
sir I was hit on my shoulder.

Q.   What
happened after that?

A.    I
fell from the bench.

Q.   After
that what happened next?

A.    Antonio
Rivera came and stabbed Melchor Botero.

Q.   Was
Melchor Botero hit when Antonio Rivera stabbed him?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Where
was he hit?

A.    On
his left nipple. (tsn, July 13, 1987, p. 4)

x x x

Q.   How
far were you when this Melchor Botero was stabbed by Antonio Rivera?

A.    We
were sitting side by side. (tsn, July
13, 1987, p. 4)

x x x

Q.   Was
there a dance going on when Melchor Botero was stabbed by Antonio Rivera?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   What
was . . . Was there a light during that dance?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   What
was the light?

A.    Two
(2) colemans.

Q.   How
far was the light or the coleman to the place the bench where you and Melchor
were seated and you were boxed by Fernando Viso?

A.    The
two (2) colemans were in front of us. (tsn, July 12, 1987, pp. 4­-5)

Rolando could very well recognize Antonio Rivera because that was
not the first time he saw appellant. Sombese further testified:

Q.   You
came to know Antonio Rivera when he was already the accused in this case?

A.    I
knew him already because everytime we had a benefit dance they used to go
there.

Q.   You
said they, to whom are you referring when you said they that went to your place
whenever you held a benefit dance?

A.    Antonio
Rivera, Fernando Viso, Sailito dela Cruz and Melito
Catarungan. (tsn, July 13, 1987, p. 9)

Thus, the trial court correctly accorded great weight to
Rolando’s testimony, viz:

“. . .there was
nothing said that he had an evil motive in testifying against the accused for
an offense which carries with it a grave penalty, neither was [there] any
showing that he had a relation to the victim. What he had testified to was based on what he saw at the time, and what
was uppermost in his mind when he immediately brought the matter to the
attention of the authorities in order that the authors of the crime must
account for what they did.” (Decision, p. 4).

In addition, strengthening Rolando’s identifica­tion and
narration is Loreto’s corroborative testimony. He testified:

Q.   After
that what happened next?

A.    The
one sitting behind Rolando Sombese who is Melchor Botero was held by Sailito
dela Cruz and stabbed by Antonio Rivera.

Q.   How
far were you when this thing happened?

A.    (Witness
pointing from the place where he was seated to the corner of the courtroom which
is about 3 meters away).

Q.   Was
there light in the barangay plaza at the time?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   What
was the light?

A.    Coleman.

Q.   In
that place where the incident took place, was that place reached by the coleman?

A.    Yes, sir. (tsn, May 11, 1988, p. 2)

Having thus shown Antonio’s indubitable participation in the
mortal assault upon Melchor, the alleged lack of commotion during the incident
becomes inconsequential and even irrelevant. Likewise, Antonio’s defense of alibi must be rejected. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification made by prosecution witnesses. (People v. Temblor, 151 SCRA 623)

Antonio cites an inconsistency between the testimonies of Rolando
and Loreto in that the former testified that the victim was immediately stabbed
by Antonio while Loreto swore that the victim was held by Sailito before being
stabbed by Antonio. From this, Antonio
concludes that the contradicting testimonies cast serious doubt on the
truthfulness of the charge against him. (Appellant’s Brief, p. 8).

The argument is untenable.

The absence of uniformity to the last detail of the testimonies
of Rolando and Loreto does not denigrate upon their credibility. Instead, their testimonies, concurring as
they do upon a vital point – that Antonio stabbed Melchor in the first round of
assault – enhances and polishes their trustworthiness. (People
v. Ferrera 151 SCRA 113)

Finally, Antonio and his companions took advantage of their
superior strength when first, Antonio attacked and stabbed the unsuspecting
Melchor and then Sailito, Melito and Fernando stabbed him in unison, thereby
rendering Melchor helpless in defending himself.

WHEREFORE, the judgement appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED. In view, however, of the
pronouncement in People v. Sison (G.R. No. 86455 promulgated September 14,
1990), the indemnity to be paid should be increased to P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

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