PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO JARALBA AND JALANDONI CORREGIDOR, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Surigao City, Branch 30, finding herein appellants Antonio Jaralba and
Jalandoni Corregidor guilty of the crime of Murder, alleged to have been
committed in the amended information as follows:

“That on or about the 30th day of October, 1986, in the City
of Surigao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused conspiring
and confederating together and mutually helping one another, armed with deadly
weapons, that is, sharp-pointed instruments, without any justifiable cause and with intent to kill Joselito
Baltar and with treachery and
cruelty did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and stab the said
Joselito Z. Baltar several times, thereby inflicting upon the latter
twenty-three (23) wounds in the different parts of his body as indicated in the post mortem findings hereto
attached, causing the instantaneous death of said Joselito Z. Baltar, to the
damage and prejudice of his heirs in such sum as may be allowed under the Civil
Code of the Philippines.

“Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with
the qualifying circumstance of treachery and cruelty.” (Rollo, p. 7).

Upon arraignment, appellants Jalandoni Corregidor and Antonio
Jaralba entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued. On
November 24, 1989, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“Wherefore, from all of the foregoing, the Court finds the
accused, ANTONIO JARALBA and JALANDONI CORREGIDOR, both guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, lacking in aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, imposes
the medium penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA (People v. Jutie, Jr., G.R. 72975, 31
March 1989, First Division, Medialdea).

“To indemnify the heirs of Joselito Baltar, jointly and
severally, the amount of P30,000.00; moral damages of P10,000.00; funeral
expenses of P5,000.00 without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency; to suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay
the costs.

“In view of the foregoing findings of guilt, the bonds filed
is (sic) ordered CANCELLED, and accused to be (sic) confined at the Provincial
Jail.

“The case with respect to John Doe is placed in ARCHIVE until
such time that the police authorities shall be able to identify and apprehend
said person.

“SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 73)

As summarized by the Solicitor General, the facts of the case are
as follows:

“On October 30, 1986, at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening,
witness Diomedes Guibao, then seventeen (17) years old, was inside the campus
of the Surigao del Norte National High School waiting for his friend Fernando
Digol (TSN, July 7, 1988, pp. 2-3). He
decided to go to the toilet (Id.). On
his way to the toilet, he saw, ahead of him, his classmate Joselito Baltar
followed by appellants Antonio Jaralba and Jalandoni Corregidor and another
person whom he did not recognize also on their way to the toilet (TSN, July 7,
1988, pp. 3, 13). Diomedes Guibao had
already known appellants for about a year having seen them hang around the
school’s premises (TSN, July 7, 1988, pp. 4, 12).

“As Diomedes was about to enter the toilet, he saw appellants
and the unidentified companion inside the toilet taking turns stabbing Joselito
Baltar with a ‘sundangay’ (small bolo) while holding the victim’s arms (TSN,
July 7, 1988, pp. 3, 8-10).

“The toilet was located at the first floor of a two-storey
building. Although the light inside the
toilet itself was not working, the twenty (20) watt flourescent light hanging
on the ceiling outside illuminated the toilet through the iron grills (TSN,
July 25, 1988, pp. 35-38; TSN, July 7, 1988, pp. 4, 11).

“At around 10:30 in
the evening, Romeo Bulabog, security guard on duty at the Surigao National
High School, was making his rounds, checking the premises using his flashlight
and closing doors, when he noticed drops of blood on the cement floor which he
traced back to the school toilet and found inside the toilet the dead body of
Joselito Baltar (TSN, July 25, 1988, pp. 31-32). Romeo reported the matter to the police (Id.).

“Responding to Romeo Bulabog’s report, police investigator
Cpl. Cipriano Iligan, together with Pat. Jamil, Cpl. Gonzaga, Cpl. Lisondra and
commercial photographer Roger Martinez, proceeded to the scene of the crime
(TSN, June 1, 1988, pp. 3-6). At the
Surigao del Norte National High School campus, Cpl. Iligan and his men followed
the trail of blood from the school toilet and found that it led to appellant
Jaralba’s store which was right beside the latter’s residence along the
national highway (TSN, June 1, 1988, pp. 5-9). Drops of blood and other
bloodstains were found on the cemented steps leading to the national road and
on the door of appellant Jaralba’s store (TSN, June 1, 1988, pp. 8-12). Commercial photographer Roger Martinez took
pictures of the toilet, the trail of blood and of the bloodstains on the door
of appellant Jaralba’s store (TSN, June 1, 1988, p. 8; TSN, August 17, 1988,
pp. 44-47).

“The policemen woke up appellant Jaralba’s father, Jorge
Jaralba, and asked the latter about the bloodstains and appellant’s whereabouts
(TSN, January 24, 1989, pp. 81-85). But
Jorge Jaralba did not know where his son was but asked the policemen to wait
while he looked for him (TSN, January 24, 1989, pp. 85-86). When he returned, Jorge Jaralba told the
policemen that he could not locate appellant Antonio Jaralba (Id., p. 85).

“The following day, an autopsy was performed by Dr. Alice
Ensomo-Gonzaga at the Saviour Funeral Parlor where Joselito Z. Baltar’s body
was taken (TSN, July 26, 1988, p. 17). She found that Joselito sustained no less than twenty three (23)
wounds: seven (7) in the anterior or
front part of the body (above the left eyebrow, on the mandible, on the neck
and on the chest) and fourteen (14) on the posterior side or the back (TSN,
July 26, 1988, pp. 17-25; Exhibit “G”). She determined the cause of death to be shock and internal
hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds (TSN, July 26, 1988, p. 22).

“On November 3, 1986, appellant Antonio Jaralba, accompanied
by his father, Jorge Jaralba, went to the police station and was investigated
(TSN, February 13, 1989, pp. 99-100).

“On March 6, 1987 or four (4) months and six (6) days after
the incident, Diomedes Guibao decided to tell his teacher Mrs. Beltran that he
witnessed the killing of Joselito Beltran (TSN, July 7, 1988, p. 6).”

Accused Antonio Jaralba denies having conspired with Jalandoni
Corregidor and the unidentified person in the murder of Joselito Baltar. He testified that on October 30, 1986, he
went to the comfort room of the Surigao del Norte High School. While there, he heard moanings coming from
the adjoining cubicle. Curious, he took
a closer look and saw a person slumped on the side thereof. Before he could clearly see the victim, a
man rushed out of the cubicle and stabbed him twice. Jaralba claims that he was hit in the palm of his right hand,
below the little finger. Thereafter, he
ran home and attended to his wound. Later, he went to the store of Paramede where he met his friends,
namely, Virgel Tomate, Jalandoni Corregidor, Lolong Abadilla and Titing
Castillo. They were drinking
liquor. The store-owner, Policeman
Paramede, asked him about his wound to which he replied that he was stabbed in
school. On November 3, 1986, Jaralba
also told his father that he was stabbed in school. His father brought him to the police station where he was
investigated. He identified a written
statement as the one prepared by the police investigator and signed by him
(Exhibit 2, pp. 485-487).

Accused Jalandoni Corregidor likewise denies the charge against
him. He claims that he was in Placer
Cemetery the whole day of October 30, 1986, working on the mausoleum of former
Mayor Canda, together with Dionisio and Lolong Abadilla. He testified that he left for Placer in the
morning and returned to Surigao City at 7:30 in the evening. He took supper in the house of Dionisio
Abadilla and went home at around 8:00 in the evening. Thereafter, he went with Andrew Abadilla to the Surigao del Norte
High School at around 8:40 in the evening to attend classes. On the way home, Corregidor and Abadilla
stopped and joined Antonio Jaralba and Tomate in their drinking session at the
Paramede store at the capitol road, from 9:00 to 9:30 in the evening. The following day, October 31, 1986, he was
picked up by the police for investigation.

As aforesaid, both the accused were convicted of the crime
charged. They now assign the following
as errors:

“1. The trial court
erred in ordering orally the amendment of the information after arraignment;

“2. The trial court
erred in proceeding with the trial without the accused being re-arraigned in
(sic) the amended information;

“3. The trial court
erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of Diomedes Guibao, the
truth that his behavior after the alleged incident is indicative of guilt;

“4. The trial court
erred in not acquitting the accused on reasonable doubt;

“5. The trial court
erred in not giving weight and credence to the testimonies of the accused and
its witnesses.” (Rollo, p. 42)

Appellants seek to capitalize on the supposed grave error
committed by the court a quo in orally amending the description of the victim’s wounds from
“lacerated” to “stab” in the autopsy report attached to the
information to conform with the testimony of the examining physician. Accordingly, appellants contend that they
were placed in double jeopardy for not having been re-arraigned.

It is elementary that for double jeopardy to attach, an accused
must, among others, first be acquitted or convicted and is being charged anew for the very same offense for which he
was previously prosecuted (Rule 117, Section 7, 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure). Here, appellants were yet
to be convicted or acquitted of the crime charged. Hence, no double jeopardy has attached. Besides, no new information was filed.

What is clear on the record is that the trial court merely
ordered a change in the description of some of the victim’s wounds from
“lacerated” to “stab” in the information in order to
conform with the description of the victim’s wounds in the autopsy report. Furthermore, a re-arraignment is necessary
only where the change or amendment of the information involves a mistake in the
charging of the proper offense (Rule 110, Section 14, par. [2], 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure). In the case at
bar, the change in the information, i.e., the change in the description of some
of the victim’s wounds from “lacerated” to “stab” was not
effected to correct a mistake in charging the proper offense. It did not have the effect of changing the
offense charged in the information, which was, and correctly remained as,
murder.

In their third assignment of error, appellants argue that the
trial court should not have given credence to the testimony of eyewitness
Diomedes Guibao because he allegedly harbored a grudge against appellant
Corregidor. In addition, Guibao failed
to reveal his knowledge of the incident until after the lapse of a considerable
period of time.

Insofar as credibility is concerned, it is well settled that the
findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses merit the highest
degree of respect. The trial court is
the best judge of whether or not a witness is credible. Its findings on the credibility of a witness
are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal
unless some facts or circumstances were overlooked that will affect the outcome
of the case, none of which obtain in the incident under review (People vs.
Moreno, Jr., 208 SCRA 87 [1992]; People vs. Villanueva, 211 SCRA 602 [1992];
People v. Uy, 206 SCRA 270 [1992]).

Still, the alleged ill-motive of Guibao against appellant
Corregidor cannot be sanctioned considering that this could not logically explain
why Guibao would likewise implicate appellant Antonio Jaralba and the other
unidentified person. No reason has been
imputed as to why said witness would implicate other persons against whom he
had no grudges. In any event, the delay
on the part of Diomedes Guibao in divulging the names of perpetrators of the
crime neither impairs his credibility nor his testimony. The initial reluctance of Diomedes Guibao to
volunteer information on a crime he witnessed and his unwillingness to be
involved in criminal investigation for fear of reprisal is common and has been
judicially declared not to affect the credibility of a witness (People vs.
Pascua, 206 SCRA 629 [1992]).

As this Court emphasized in People v. Mandapat (196 SCRA 157
[1991]):

“As a general rule, the failure of a witness to report at once
to the police authorities the crime he had witnessed cannot be taken against
him (People v. Demate, 113 SCRA 353 [1982]) for “it is not uncommon for a
witness to a crime to show some reluctance about getting involved in a criminal
case. The natural reticence of most
people to get involved in a criminal case is of judicial notice” (People
v. Pacabes, 137 SCRA 158 [1985]; People v. Coronado, 145 SCRA 250 [1986]) and
the fear of eyewitnesses when townmates are involved in the commission of the
crime is understandable for they may provide reprisals from the accused (People
v. Rosario, 134 SCRA 496 [1985]). The
delay, when adequately explained, does not impair the credibility of the
witness, as in the case at bar (People v. Cabanit, 139 SCRA 94 [1985]; People
v. Millora, 119 SCRA 417 [1984]); neither will it render his testimony biased
(People v. Itura, 129 SCRA 127 [1984]; nor will it destroy its probative value
(People v. Millora, supra); x x x”

Neither can we lend credence to the claims of appellants that
Diomedes Guibao was the real killer and that the police investigators merely
framed them up. In the first place,
there was not a scintilla of evidence to support the same. Allegations sans proof deserve no merit. Appellants never specified what the police
investigators did or had against them. Secondly, the police officers are presumed to have regularly performed
their duties in the absence of evidence to the contrary (Rule 131, Section 3
[m], Rules of Court). From the
attendant circumstances, the Court sees no reason why the police officers would
falsely concoct a serious charge against accused herein if they really did not
commit the offense charged. Absent a
showing that the police officers were actuated by improper motive, their
testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit (People vs. Fernandez, 209
SCRA 1 [1992]).

With regard to the unsubstantiated claim of appellant Corregidor
that he could not have participated in the stabbing of Joselito Baltar since he
was in Placer working on the mausoleum of the Canda family, We find the same to
be untenable.

In People v. Arbolante (203 SCRA 85 [1991]), We held that
“denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and can easily be
defeated by the affirmative and credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses
pointing to the accused as the perpetrators of the crime for which they are
charged.” Denial of guilt, uncorroborated by any reliable evidence, cannot
overthrow the clear and convincing testimonies of prosecution witneses as to
the culpability of the accused (People vs. Arceo, 202 SCRA 170 [1991]).

Furthermore, it is firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that
the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of
prosecution witnesses and their clear identification of the accused as the
perpetrator of the crime. This is so
because, as we have invariably but patiently reiterated, alibi is a defense
that is inherently weak since it can easily be fabricated or contrived (People
vs. Pascua, 206 SCRA 628 [1992]). As
against the positive and clear identification by eyewitness Diomedes Guibao,
appellants’ defense of alibi cannot stand. It has been ruled time and again that for the defense of alibi to
prosper, it must be established by clear evidence that not only must the
accused be somewhere other than the place of the commission of the crime but
that it was also physically impossible for him to be at the situs of the crime
at the time of its commission (People vs. Magallanes, G.R. No. 89036, Jan. 29,
1993, citing People vs. Urquia, Jr., 203 SCRA 735 [1991]).

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED, with
the modification as to the indemnity which is hereby increased from P30,000.00
to P50,000.00. Costs against
appellants.

SO ORDERED.

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

Feliciano, J., (Chairman), on
leave.