PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO GABAS Y ALBARIDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. ANTONIO GABAS Y TULO (ALIAS TONIO) AND PEDRITO GAID (ALIAS NITOY; AT LARGE), ACCUSED.

Romeo Gabas and Antonio Gabas were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay, Bukidnon,^[1]
of the crime of Double Murder with Frustrated Murder for the
killing of Epimaco and Estelita
Verdida and the wounding of Efelito
Verdida. The two (2) accused were made to suffer he
penalty of reclusion perpetua for the
double murder charge, and an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years of prision correccional
as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision
mayor as maximum for the frustrated murder charge. The two were ordered
to solidarily indemnify the heirs of Epimaco and Estelita Verdida the sum of sixty thousand pesos (P60,000.00). The
other accused, Pedrito Gaid,
was not apprehended and remain at large.

The prosecution established that on September 4, 1987, at around seven
o’clock in the evening, Romeo Gabas,
Antonio Gabas and Pedrito Gaid, all armed and wearing black masks, barged into the
house of Epimaco and Estelita
Verdida and announced a robbery.^[2]
At that time, the spouses and their six children (Miguela,
Jessa, Ray, Roy, Jeson and Efelito) had just finished taking .their supper.^[3]
Upon seeing the intruders, Estelita crawled on the
floor and tried to seek shelter in another room. Antonio ran after her and
started stabbing her. Estelita sustained stab wounds
on the back and on the esophagus. Her hands were also severed. In the process,
Antonio’s mask fell off his face.^[4]

In the meantime, Romeo and Pedrito
ganged up on the hapless Epimaco. Romeo shot Epimaco on the chest of her brother.^[5]

Consequently, an Information for Double Murder with Frustrated
Murder was filed against Romeo Gabas, Antonio Gabas and Pedrito Gaid. It reads:

“That on or about the 4th day of, September, 1987, in the
evening, particularly inside the house of spouses Epimaco
Verdida and Estelita Verdida at Purok 6, sitio Inawaan, Malabuaya, barangay Batanagan, municipality of Valencia, province of Bukidnon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, together with PEDRITO GAID Alias
“Nitoy“, who is still at large, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill by means of
treachery and evident premeditation, armed with a knife, bolo and unidentified
rifle, with which they were conveniently provided and wearing black masks, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally
stab, hack and shoot Epimaco Verdida
and Estelita Verdida,
inflicting upon their persons, mortal wounds, which caused their instantaneous
death;

“That on the occasion, the above-named accused, armed with the
same weapons, with intent to kill, by means of treachery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally shoot Efelito Verdida, hitting both his
feet, which wounds would have caused his death, but nevertheless did not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused and the
timely assistance accorded the victim Efelito Verdida, to the damage and prejudice of the victims in the
amount they are entitled under the law.

“The crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of
nighttime and dwelling.

“Contrary to and in violation of Article 248, in relation to
Articles 48 and 6 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.”.

As stated earlier, only Antonio and Romeo Gabas
were apprehended and tried. Accused Pedrito Gaid remain at large.

After the prosecution established the aforenarrated
facts, the two (2) accused adduced their respective evidence.

Accused Romeo Gabas relied on the
defense of alibi. He claimed that on said date and time, he was residing in his
father’s house, his father then suffering from cancer of the liver. The whole
morning of September 4, 1987,
he allegedly weeded out grass in their ricefield. He
returned to his father’s house at around 5:30
in the afternoon, washed up, took supper and went straight to bed. The next
day, he followed the same schedule. In the morning, he went to the field and
weeded out the grass. He went back to his father’s house for lunch. At about two o’clock in the afternoon, he was
apprehended by the police authorities while watching a game of cards at a
neighbor’s house. He admitted that he knew spouses Epimaco
and Estelita Verdida. They
resided in the same barrio and his father’s house was just three (3) kilometers
from his father’s house.^[6]
Accused Romeo Gabas‘ testimony was corroborated in
substance by his brother Geonilo Gabas.^[7]

Accused Antonio Gabas, on the other
hand, presented a different version of the incident. He claimed that on the
date and time in question, he went to the Verdida’s
residence to pay his debt. He requested Estelita Verdida to make an accounting of his outstanding
obligation. Thereafter, he handed to Estelita the sum
of twenty-five pesos (P25.00) as partial payment for his debt and promised that
he would make good on his entire obligation after the harvest. Estelita allegedly got mad and hurled insults against him.
This resulted in a heated exchange of words. Suddenly, Epimaco
came into the room and started hacking him. He used Estelita
to shield himself from Epimaco’s hacking blows. He,
nevertheless, sustained several hacking wounds on different parts of his body.
He, thus, claimed that it was Epimaco, not Miguela, who hacked him.^[8]

After trial, the court a quo rendered a decision, dated April 16, 1990,^[9]
finding the two (2) accused guilty as charged. The dispositive
portion reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused ROMEO GABAS y ALBARIDA
and ANTONIO GABAS y TULO alias Tonio, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder for the killing of Epimaco
Verdida and another crime of Murder for the killing
of Estelita Verdida, as
defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and the
crime of Frustrated Murder for the wounding of the victims’ son, Efelito Verdida, as defined under
Article 248, and penalized, under Article 250, in relation to Article 50, all
of the Revised Penal Code.

“Considering the presence of aggravating circumstances of
dwelling and employment of disguise, nighttime being absorbed by treachery, and
there being no mitigating circumstance present to affect them, the court hereby
sentences the two above-named accused to a penalty of reclusion perpetua for the killing of Epimaco
Verdida. For the wounding of Efelito
Verdida, the victims’ son, the Court hereby sentences
the same two accused to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional
as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision
mayor as maximum.

“The two accused are hereby ordered to pay jointly and
severally the amount of P60,000.00 as indemnity to the heirs of the deceased
victims, Epimaco Verdida
and Estelita Verdida. The
weapons and the instruments used by the accused in the commission of the crime
are hereby forfeited in favor of the government.

“The accused are hereby credited in full of (sic) whatever
preventive imprisonment they may have undergo(ne) in
this case pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

“SO ORDERED.”^[10]

Only accused Romeo Gabas interposed the
present appeal. He contends that:

I.

THE COURT ERRED IN RULING
THAT APPELLANT ROMEO GABAS WAS POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED BY THE PROSECUTION
EYEWITNESS.

II.

THE COURT ERRED IN
FINDING APPELLANT ROMEO GABAS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF MURDER ON TWO
COUNTS AND FRUSTRATED MURDER.

In his brief, accused-appellant impugns the identification made
by eyewitness Miguela Verdida
that he was the one who stabbed the deceased Estelita
Verdida. He points to the alleged discrepancy in the
circumstance which led her to recognize and identify the masked malefactors. It
is claimed that in Miguela’s sworn statement^[11]
she deposed that despite the masks worn by the intruders, she recognized them
by their hair, voice and posture. At the trial, however, Miguela
testified that she was able to recognize and identify the intruders for, during
the commotion, their masks fell off. Hence, accused-appellant urges that his
identification by Miguela should be rejected.

Again, we are faced with the issue involving the credibility of
the testimony of a prosecution eyewitness. The issue continues to confound
courts for a witness’ credibility is a subjective, amorphous quality, often
defined as much by the preconceptions of the trial judge who perceive the
witness as the latter testifies. A witness’ credibility may also be affected by
such factor as the plausibility of the theory and theme the witness was meant
to support.^[12]

Grappling the issue at bench, it bears emphasis that a sworn
statement or an affidavit does not purport to contain a complete compendium of
the details of the event narrated by the affiant. Affidavits, ordinarily in a
question-and-answer form, are usually and routinely prepared in police
precincts by police investigators. Not infrequently, the
investigator/interrogator propound questions merely to elicit a general
picture of the subject matter under investigation.

As a general rule, inconsistency between two statements’ of a
witness should be determined, not by resort to individual words or phrases
alone, but by the whole impression or effect of what has been said or
done.^[13]
Placing Miguela’s allegedly inconsistent statements side
by side, we do not, find any real inconsistency between her two assertions. As
may be gleaned from the records, when the three intruders barged into the house
of the Verdida family, Miguela
was able to recognize them by their hair, voice and posture. This fact was the
subject of her sworn statement. However, it was also clearly established at the
trial that, during the affray, the masks of the intruders fell off. Miguela testified that Antonio’s mask fell off first when
he bent over to stab Estelita at the back. Then she
saw Romeo’s mask fall off while the latter was in the act of shooting her
father Epimaco. The last mask to fall off was that of
Nitoy’s.^[14]

Thus, we find that, in the case at bench, the inconsistency
pointed out by accused-appellant as to how Miguela
was able to identify him as one of the malefactors is not sufficient to
discredit her testimony in court. When Miguela was
asked on cross-examination why she did not relate in her affidavit the fact
that the intruders’ masks fell off, she explained that she was not asked about
the matter.^[15]
Thus, the omission of Miguela to state in her
affidavit that the intruders’ masks fell off does not necessarily justify the
conclusion that said circumstance did not actually take place. Indeed, there is
no rule of evidence to the effect that omission of certain particulars in an
affidavit would estop an affiant from making an
elaboration thereof during the trial. On the contrary, trial courts cannot
allow admission of sworn statements without the testimony of the affiant.

All factors considered, we find Miguela’s
identification of accused-appellant as credible in view of the visibility
coming from the light of the kerosene lamp and, more importantly, because all
the accused were familiar neighbors of the Verdida
family. It bears emphasis to note that Miguela Verdida is a 14-year old girl who witnessed the senseless
killing of her parents. Despite the horror of witnessing such a gruesome
incident, Miguela had the presence of mind to try and
defend, albeit unsuccessfully, her mother from the attack of the intruders who
unceremoniously barged into their house. Noticeably, no proof was adduced by
the defense to show that Miguela had previously
harbored any grudge or ill-feeling towards any of the accused as to falsely
impute on them such a serious crime as murder. There is no reasonable basis to
disbelieve the testimony of eyewitness Miguela Verdida.

Upon the other hand, accused-appellant’s alibi, corroborated by a
relative, does not inspire credence. Time and again, we have held that for the
easily concocted defense of alibi to prosper, the requisites of time and place
should concur. In the case at bench, accused-appellant did not adduce evidence
to prove that it was impossible for him to be present at the scene of the crime
at the time of its commission. In fact, the records will bear that the distance
between the house of accused-appellant’s father, where accused-appellant claims
he was at that time, and the residence of the Verdida
family were located in the same barrio, being only about three (3) kilometers
apart.^[16]
Such being the case, it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to
have been present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED
only with respect to the indemnity awarded to the heirs of Epimaco
and Efelita Verdida. It is
increased to one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) consistent with the
current policy of this Court. Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C. J. (Chairman), Padilla
and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Mendoza, J., did not take part in the deliberation.

^[1]
Branch 10, presided by Judge Alejo S. Rola.

^[2]
TSN, April 4, 1988, p. 5.

^[3]
TSN, June 1, 1988, p. 4.

^[4]
TSN, April 4, 1988, pp. 8
& 10; TSN, June 1, 1988,
pp. 11 & 16.

^[5]
TSN, April 4, 1988, pp.
9-24.

^[6]
TSN, February 23, 1989, pp.
25-30; 35.

^[7]
id., pp. 3-20.

^[8]
TSN, February 22, 1989, pp.
20-26.

^[9]
Rollo, pp. 26-34.

^[10]
Appellee’s Brief, Rollo,
pp. 120-121.

^[11]
Exhibit “1-C’, Original Records, p. 3.

^[12]
81 Am Jur 2d, p. 840.

^[13]
Wigmore on Evidence, volume III, p. 725.

^[14]
TSN, June 1, 1988, pp.
11-16.

^[15]
TSN, June 1, 1988, p. 19.

^[16]
TSN, February 23, 1989, p.
35.