PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CARLITO ALCANTARA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is a petition for review of the decision dated July 17, 1990
of the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, Branch 55, convicting
defendant-appellant Carlito Alcantara of the crime of murder and sentencing him
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The information which was filed against the appellant on July 18,1989
by the Provincial Prosecutor of Quezon reads as follows:

“That on or about the 6th day of January 1989, at Barangay
Ilayang Bolo, Municipality of Unisan, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed
with a small bolo (itak-itakan), with intent to kill and with treachery, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab
with the said bolo one Wilfredo Hugo, thereby inflicting upon the latter a stab
wound on a vital part of his body which directly caused his death.

“That accused attacked and stabbed and said Wilfredo Hugo
suddenly and unexpectedly without giving him any opportunity to repel the
attack or to escape.” (p. 7, Rollo.)

Upon arraignment, Alcantara pleaded not guilty.

The facts of the case as set forth in the decision of the court a
quo are as follows:

“The scenario depicted by the People’s evidence is that
Wilfredo Hugo, the victim, at the time of his death, was a resident of Barangay
Ilayang Bolo, Unisan, Quezon. He was
earning his livelihood as a tenant of a coconut plantation and receiving an
income of around P1,500.00 a year. Although single in civil status, he fathered two (2) sons from a common
law wife.

“The crime scene is the waiting shed situated at Sitio
Malinta, Ilayang Bolo, Panaon, Unisan, Quezon, which is adjacent to the house of the spouses Atanacio and Delia
Tapero, both prosecution witnesses (Exhibits ‘K’ and ‘L’), and fifteen (15) to
twenty (20) meters away, more or less, from the house of a certain Hector
Rivera, a brother-in-law of Atanacio Tapero.

“The spouses Atanacio and Delia Tapero positively identified
the accused as Wilfredo Hugo’s assailant four (4) days after the crime in
question occurred (sic) by executing and signing their separate and sworn
statements (Exhibit ‘A’ with sub-marking) before investigators of the Unisan
Police Force on January 10, 1989. In
their separate testimonies before the Court, they recalled how they witnessed
the killing of Wilfredo Hugo on the night of January 6, 1989, as follows: That on or about 7:00 o’clock that night,
they were inside the aforestated waiting shed with Wilfredo Hugo conversing
with one another when accused Carlito Alcantara arrived causing them to stop
their conversation; that the accused then
invited Wilfredo Hugo to the house of Hector Rivera, which is situated nearby,
and asked the victim for ‘pulutan’ but Wilfredo Hugo refused and made the
following utterances: ‘Why will I go
when you know that I do not go there;’ that after Wilfredo Hugo made such
utterances, the accused, who sat beside Wilfredo Hugo at the latter’s right
side after his arrival, stood up as if he was going away from the waiting shed
and after moving towards his right, he suddenly swerved to his left side and
stabbed Wilfredo Hugo with a small bolo (itak-itakan) (Exhibit ‘B’) in his left
hand hitting the victim on the right side of his body just under his armpit;
and that at the time accused stabbed Wilfredo Hugo, the spouses Tapero thought
that accused merely boxed the victim with his left hand.

“The same spouses likewise recalled
that after the stabbing incident, accused ran towards the house of Hector
Rivera while Wilfredo Hugo asked help from them by uttering the following: ‘Utol Tacing (Atanacio’s nickname), tulungan
mo ako, tinraydor ako, may tama ako.’ And Atanacio held the victim while the
latter was falling to the ground. At
that instance, the accused returned to the waiting shed carrying the small bolo
(Exhibit ‘B’, Id.) in order to finish his prey but when he saw Wilfredo Hugo
lying on the ground already lifeless, he ran away from the place of
incident.” (pp. 9-10, Rollo.)

On July 18, 1989, the trial court rendered judgment finding the
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the accused CARLITO
ALCANTARA Y RONTERASO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime
of Murder, qualified by treachery, as defined and penalized by the provisions
of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no modifying
circumstances proved to either aggravate or mitigate his liability, hereby
sentences said accused to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment; to pay to the heirs of the deceased Wilfredo Hugo the sum
of P30,000.00, by way of indemnity for the death of said victim; P 8,207.50, as
actual damages; compensatory damages of P30,000.00, by way of unrealized
earnings; and further, to pay the costs.” (p. 20, Rollo.)

Hence, this appeal wherein the apppellant alleges that:

1. the trial court erred in
believing the version of the prosecution and in disregarding that of the
defense;

2. the trial court erred in convicting
accused-appellant of the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The petition is without merit.

In disclaiming liability for the murder of Wilfredo Hugo, the
appellant testified that he was in his house at Ilayang Bulo, Unisan, the night
Hugo was stabbed to death with a bolo. However, appellant admitted that he was in Rivera’s house in the
afternoon of January 6, 1989 where he had a drinking session with some friends.

The defense of alibi, which the appellant relies on, is always
received with caution, if not suspicion, by the courts, not only because it is
inherently weak and unreliable, but also because of its easy fabrication. To overcome the evidence of the prosecution,
an alibi must satisfy the test of full, clear, and satisfactory evidence
(People vs. Baring, 187 SCRA 629, citing People vs. Gaddi y Catubay, 170 SCRA
649). For the defense of alibi to
prosper, it does not suffice to prove merely the whereabouts of the accused at
the time the crime was committed; it must be indisputably demonstrated that at
the time of the commission of the crime, it was physically impossible for the
suspect to have been at, or near, the scene of the crime (People vs.
Manzanares, 177 SCRA 427).

Moreover, the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses (People vs. Serrano,
170 SCRA 663).

The accused was identified as the person who stabbed Wilfredo
Hugo by the eye-witnesses, Atanacio and Delia Tapero, who were with the victim
in the waiting shed when the stabbing occurred. They could not possibly have been mistaken as to the identity of
the killer for they personally knew him.

As correctly pointed out by the trial court, the appellant’s defense
of alibi is weak, hence, must be rejected. Appellant’s allegation that his wife, Amy Alcantara, and his
brother-in-law, Glicerio Torres, met him when he arrived at his house in
Ilayang Bulo, Unisan, at 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of January 6, 1989, was
not corroborated by his wife and brother-in-law. Furthermore, his house is not inaccessibly remote from the scene
of the crime. As he himself testified,
his house is only 2-1/2 kilometers distant from the murder scene.

The defense of alibi is unconvincing when the distance from the
place where the accused allegedly was, and the scene of the crime can be
negotiated within minutes (People vs. Marmita, Jr., 180 SCRA 723). In People vs. Binsol, 100 Phil. 713, we held
that a distance of only three (3) kilometers between the scene of the crime and
the alleged whereabouts of the accused “is not so far to preclude the
possibility of the accused’s presence at the locus criminis.”

The appellant assails the trial court’s finding that treachery was
present in the commission of the crime. He argues that the Municipal Health Officer’s finding, upon a
post-mortem examination of the body of the victim, that a contusion was
sustained by the victim and his belief that it could have been caused by a fist
fight between the victim and his assailant, rules out treachery in the stabbing
of the victim. However, that
speculation of the Municipal Health Officer was refuted by the two
eye-witnesses who declared that no fight preceded the appellant’s sudden attack
against the deceased. The contusion on
the forehead and jaw of the deceased could have been caused by his fall.

A sudden and unexpected attack, without
the slightest provocation on the person of the one attacked, is the essence of
treachery (People vs. Rey, 172 SCRA 149). As testified by the prosecution witnesses, the appellant stood up and
pretended to leave but he suddenly turned around to the left and stabbed the
victim with his small bolo. The
surprise attack was indeed treacherous as it was totally unexpected by the
hapless victim.

WHEREFORE, finding no merit in the appeal, the decision of
the trial court is AFFIRMED in toto. However, the civil indemnity of P30,000 for the death of Wilfredo
Hugo should be increased to P50,000 in accordance with more recent
jurisprudence (People vs. Sazon, 189 SCRA 700).

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, and Medialdea,
JJ., concur.