PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MELCHOR DATINGGINOO Y BRIONES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The night was still young and not at all dark. There were a hundred lights in the carnival
nearby and in the houses and stores along the street. Yet all this did not deter the assailants from their wicked
plan. When their prey arrived, they
struck: they robbed and stabbed him, leaving him dying on the ground. And then they fled. It was over in minutes.

But the reckoning was yet to come, at least for one of them. He now comes before this Court in this
appeal, to plead that he was not one of them.

On September 5, 1988, at about 8:15 in the evening, Mariano
Aumentado was on his way home from his drug store at Larangay Street, Phase 3,
Dagat-dagatan, Kalookan City. Three
persons accosted him and forcibly took his wallet containing P4,100.00 and a
wrist watch worth P750.00. He resisted
but he was boxed in the stomach and stabbed several times in the chest. Rushed immediately thereafter to Tondo
General Hospital, he was declared dead on arrival.

Investigation pointed to Melchor Datingginoo as one of the
assailants. On January 7, 1989, an
information for robbery with homicide was filed against him, together with his
still unknown companions, in the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City.^[1]

At the trial, the prosecution presented Mariano’s daughter, Anna
Marie Aumentado, and Natividad Raulo vda. de Calayag, who both testified that
they saw the incident from the drug store, which they were then tending. It was only six arms length away from the
scene of the crime. Both witnesses
identified the killer as Melchor Datingginoo, the herein appellant, who they said used
to buy medicines from the drug store.^[2]

The other witnesses for the prosecution were Dr. Valentin
Bernales, the NBI medico-legal officer who declared that the victim died as a
result of hemorrhage caused by five
stab wounds,^[3] and
two CIS policemen, Alberto David and Manuel de Leon, who arrested Datingginoo
and interviewed the witnesses.^[4] Annie Aumentado Romantico, another daughter
of the victim, testified on the amount of damages suffered by his heirs.^[5]

The appellant denied the allegations of the prosecution and
claimed that at the time of the incident he was in the house of his compadre,
Antonio Esternon.^[6]
The latter corroborated his testimony and said they were having a drinking
session when the stabbing occurred.^[7]
Ligaya Alcopra, who also claimed to have witnessed the attack on Aumentado,
swore on the stand that the appellant was not among the assailants she saw.^[8]

In his decision dated June 21, 1990, Judge Rene Victoriano found
the accused guilty as charged and disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused
MELCHOR DATINGGINOO y BRIONES GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with
homicide as described and penalized under paragraph 1 of Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences said accused to suffer imprisonment of Reclusion
Perpetua, taking into consideration the presence of the aggravating
circumstances of the use of superior strength and the absence of any mitigating
circumstance. This Court directs the
accused to return to the heirs of the victim the Seiko wrist watch and the
wallet containing P4,100.00, and if unable to do so, to reimburse said heirs
the total amount of P4,850.00. This
Court likewise directs the accused to indemnify the heirs of the victim the
amount of P13,600.00 representing the burial expenses and the expenses incurred
during the wake of the victim and the additional amount of P100,000.00
representing the loss of income of the victim.

The accused is entitled to full credit of his preventive
imprisonment pursuant to Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code provided the
conditions enumerated therein have been complied with.

SO ORDERED.^[9]

The appellant now questions the veracity of the witnesses for the
prosecution and says the trial court should have given more credence to the
defense witness.

We have said time and again that when it comes to the assessment
of the credibility of witnesses, the conclusions of the trial court are well
nigh conclusive on appeal, absent a showing that they were reached arbitrarily
or without substantial basis. The judge
conducting the trial has the opportunity not available to the appellate court
of observing the witnesses directly and detecting by their demeanor the
tell-tale signs of fact or fabrication. We see no reason to disturb his findings in the case at bar.

The defense doubts Anna’s narration of the attack, noting that
while she described the appellant in detail, she hardly said anything about his
alleged companions. This failure does
not detract from the veracity of her testimony as it was natural for her – or
any witness for that matter – to focus her attention on the principal
perpetrator of the crime. This witness
was positive that the person who boxed and killed her father was the appellant.

The three wounds on the chest of the victim positioned slightly
downward and medially supported Calayag’s testimony that Aumentado was stabbed
three times on the chest with downward thrusts.

Significantly, Anna’s testimony tallied in all material points
with that of Natividad. They were not
far from the scene of the crime and clearly saw its commission by the lights
from the houses and the stores on the street as well as the carnival nearby.

While time may have blurred their recollection of the details,
the basic facts of the slaying remained in their memory. The minor inconsistencies and contradictions
in their declarations do not destroy their credibility but in fact even enhance
it as they erase any suspicion of a perjured or rehearsed testimony. As we
said in People v. De Guzman:^[10]

The inconsistencies pointed out by the defense in the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses do not detract from their essential veracity. The truth need not be narrated with perfect
symmetry. Several persons remembering
the same incident may vary in their recollections of some of the details but
these differences do not necessarily make liars of them all. What is important is that they agree on the
essential facts and that their respective versions corroborate and substantially
coincide with each other to make a consistent and coherent whole.

Datingginoo’s alibi is far from convincing. Although Esternon testified that he was
drinking with him at the time of the incident, he admitted on cross-examination
that he left the appellant several times for more than 15 minutes to mind his
store. Moreover, the defense has not
shown that it was physically impossible for the appellant to be at the scene of
the crime at the time it was committed. On the contrary, it was established that the house of Antonio is also
located in Dagat-dagatan and not far from where the killing occurred.

On top of its inherent weakness, alibi becomes less plausible as
a defense when it is corroborated only by a relative or a close friend of the
accused, as in the case at bar. At any
rate, it was for the trial judge, using his discretion and his observations at
the trial, to determine whom to believe among the witnesses disputing the
whereabouts of the appellant in the evening of September 5, 1988.

The appellant himself admitted that there was no grudge between
him and the prosecution witnesses, including the victim’s daughters. There was, therefore, no reason why they
would falsely implicate him in the serious crime of robbery with homicide. We dismiss outright his feeble contention that he was falsely
charged because he was the team leader in the barangay who kept track of drug
peddlers. The connection is too
tenuous.

To sustain a conviction for the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide, it must be shown that the original criminal design of the
culprit was robbery and the homicide was perpetrated with a view to the
consummation of the robbery by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.^[11]
In the case before us, it is clear that the appellant and his companions acted
in unison and cooperated with each other toward the accomplishment of a common
felonious purpose, which was to rob and kill the victim.^[12]
We also agree that the crime was attended with abuse of superior strength, for
the three men stabbed a defenseless victim who was then already 67 years old.

We sustain the findings of the trial court regarding the damages
due to the victim’s heirs as a result of his death. These findings are merely factual and appear to be based on the
evidence of record. Conformably to
existing policy, however, we shall increase the civil indemnity for his death
to P50,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the appealed
judgment is AFFIRMED with the modification that the civil indemnity is
increased to P50,000.00. Costs
against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Griño-Aquino, Bellosillo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Records, p. 2.

^[2]
TSN, November 23, 1989, p. 7.

^[3]
TSN, November 29, 1989, p. 21.

^[4]
TSN, December 15, 1989, pp. 4, 7, 12, 13.

^[5]
TSN, December 20, 1989, pp. 4-8.

^[6]
TSN, January 24, 1990, pp. 7-8.

^[7]
TSN, February 1, 1990, pp. 4-5.

^[8]
TSN, January 4, 1990, pp. 19-20, 26-27.

^[9]
Rollo, pp. 8-9.

^[10]
188 SCRA 407.

^[11]
People v. Ponciano, 204 SCRA 627.

^[12]
TSN, November 23, 1989, pp. 7-8, 10.