PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BETHOVEN LIZADA AND RICHARD MONAHAN, ACCUSED, BETHOVEN LIZADA, APPELLANT.

Bethoven Lizada and Richard Monahan were charged with the crime
of Murder in an Information dated 23 January 1984, committed as follows:

“That on or about 8:30 o’clock in the evening of October 19,
1983 at Brgy. Najus-an, Mambusao, Capiz, Philippines, within the jurisdiction
of this Court, accused BETHOVEN LIZADA, conspiring, confe­derating and acting
in common accord with his co-accused RICHARD MONAHAN with evident preme­ditation,
treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, nighttime, dwelling and
cruelty, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully assault and bolo one ROBERTO
LIPARDO, inflicting numerous bolo and incised wounds in different parts of his
body which caused his death thereafter.

That due to the death of ROBERTO LIPARDO, his heirs suffered and
are entitled to a death indemnity in the amount of at least P12,000.00;
indemnity for the loss of his earning capacity; and moral damages for mental anguish.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[1]

Both accused pleaded not guilty but accused Richard Monahan, thru
counsel, later manifested that he would withdraw his plea of not guilty and
pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Capiz, Branch 21
rendered a decision dated 10 December 1990 the dispositive part of which reads:

“Wherefore, the Court finds the accused Richard Monahan guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the lesser offense of Homicide punished in Article
249 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the
indeterminate prison term of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor
as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of
reclusion temporal as maximum.

This Court finds accused Bethoven Lizada GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Murder as charged and hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.

In addition, both accused are ordered to indemnify the heirs of the
victim, Roberto Lipardo, in the sum of P30,000.00 for the latter’s death,
P20,000.00 as actual damages; and P100,000.00 as moral damages, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. This civil liability is joint and solidary
(several).

Both accused are ordered confined at the New Bilibid Prison,
Muntinlupa, Rizal, upon finality of judgment.

SO ORDERED.”^[2]

Only Bethoven Lizada appealed; the judgment has thus become final
with respect to his co-accused Richard Monahan. The following errors are assigned to the trial court:

“x x x IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME
CHARGED WHEN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS WEAK AND REPLETE WITH
IMPROBABILITIES WHICH FAILED TO OVERCOME THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

x x x IN FINDING THAT THE KILLING OF ROBERTO LIPARDO WAS ATTENDED
BY TREACHERY AND AGGRAVATED BY CRUELTY WHEN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE
PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY AND/OR
THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF CRUELTY.”^[3]

The facts establish that at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of
19 October 1983, at Barangay Najus-an, Mambusao, Capiz, the victim Roberto
Lipardo sustained seventeen (17) hack-wounds which caused his death.

Three (3) eyewitnesses, Lester Cahugom, Percival Fuentes and Lito
Opanto, positively identified the two (2) accused as the perpetrators of the
crime.

Cahugom testified that at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of 19
October 1983, he was with Lacreo Lumbania and Percival Fuentes at the latter’s
house when they heard a gunshot coming from the fruit farm of the victim,
Roberto Lipardo. They immediately went
out to investigate and since he took a short cut, he got to Lipardo’s property
ahead of the two. He then saw the two
(2) accused, Bethoven Lizada and Richard Monahan, hacking Lipardo with bolos
while the latter was lying on his back on the ground.

Fuentes, having taken a longer route in going to Lipardo’s house,
testified that he met the mother of the accused Lizada, Ludivina (Bening)
Lizada who told him that her son was having an argument with Roberto Lipardo
after which he (Fuentes) headed towards the latter’s house and he saw from a
distance of about ten (10) meters the two (2) accused holding bolos. The two (2) accused immediately fled upon
seeing Fuentes and Cahugom. The
lifeless body of Roberto Lipardo was found at the spot where the two (2)
accused had stood.

A third eyewitness, Lito Opanto, testified that at around 8:00
o’clock in the evening of 19 October 1983, he was on his way home, when he
heard a loud voice saying, “Roberto, where are you? We will kill you!” Upon hearing this,
he hid behind the bamboo groves from where he later saw the two (2) accused,
Lizada and Monahan, going towards Lipardo’s hut. He heard Bethoven Lizada say, “Lolo Roberto, why do you say
that we are the ones stealing your lanzones?” to which Lipardo answered,
“I do not impute anything to you.” After the brief exchange of words,
Opanto saw Lizada fire a shot at Lipardo but it was Monahan who was hit.

The witnesses for the defense attempted to prove that the
appellant Lizada was sleeping in his house when the killing took place.

Richard Monahan, who pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of
homicide, testified that it was the victim, Roberto Lipardo who shot him and it
was he alone who hacked the victim to death.

Ludivina Lizada, Bethoven’s mother and Leonila Celestial both
testified that at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of 19 October 1983, the
accused Bethoven Lizada was at the Lizada residence and never left that night.

Bethoven Lizada testified that he was already asleep when the
incident happened and he was awakened when Percival Fuentes, Lester Cahugom and
Lacring Lumbania started shouting, throwing stones at the house and demanding
that they let Richard Monahan out of the house.

The Court takes special notice of the fact that four (4)
different judges presided over the hearings in this case and that Judge Julius
L. Abela, who rendered the decision convicting the accused only heard the
testimonies of Bethoven Lizada, Leonila Celestial and the rebuttal witness,
Police Lt. Lamberto Arceno. In the case
of People vs. Escalante^[4]
we held that the rule that the findings of the trial court on the credibility
of witnesses are to be accorded great weight does not apply when the judge who rendered the decision was not the one
who heard the witnesses. The
constitutional presumption of innocence and the peculiar circumstances in this
case compelled us to carefully scrutinize the testimonies of each of the witnesses
to be able to determine whether or not guilt has been proved beyond reasonable
doubt.

In cases where the courts have no basis by which to gauge the
credibility of the witnesses, the need to carefully determine whether the prosecution
has successfully presented a case which clearly and with moral certainty
establishes the guilt of the accused is of the utmost importance. A judgment of conviction should not be
rendered in cases where the evidence presented gives rise to two (2)
probabilities, one consistent with guilt and another with the innocence of the
accused.^[5]
Tutius semper est errare acquietando quam
in puniendo – It is always safer to err in acquitting than in
punishing.

In the case at bar, no less than three (3) eyewitnesses pointed
to both of the accused, Richard Monahan and appell­ant Bethoven Lizada, as the
assailants of the victim, Roberto Lipardo. The testimonies of the three (3) were clear, straightforward and
unshaken during cross?examination.

On the other hand, the defense interposed denial and alibi to
absolve accused-appellant Bethoven Lizada. In People vs. Alterado, Jr.^[6] the
Court held that the defense of alibi was futile because, aside from its
inherent weakness, the perpetrators were positively identified and the distance between the scene of the
crime and the alleged location of the accused-appellant did not make it
impossible for the latter to have committed the offense. In the case at bar, no less than the
accused-appellant admitted that the crime scene was less than two hundred (200)
meters away from his house where he allegedly was sleeping at the time of the
incident.^[7]

A careful examination of the records of this case shows no
evidence and nothing to indicate that the three (3) eyewitnesses for the prosecution
had any improper motive to falsely impute an offense as serious as murder on
accused-appellant, Bethoven Lizada. The
presumption therefore is that the testimonies of the three (3) witnesses are
true and are entitled to full faith and credit.^[8] Nothing
in the testimonies of the three (3) eyewitnesses indicate any motive except to
tell the truth and to aid in the administration of justice. All the three (3) eyewitnesses positively
and independently identified the two (2) accused to be the murderers. The Court finds no reason to reverse the
judgment of conviction against Bethoven Lizada.

While the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not
sufficiently established, the trial court committed no error in convicting the
accused-appellant of murder. The
information alleged abuse of superior strength in the commission of the
offense. The victim, Roberto Lipardo,
was an unarmed sixty four (64) year old man while both accused were in their
thirties and armed. Clearly, the
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing and
thus the offense is murder, described in and penalized under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code.

WHEREFORE, with the modification that the indemnity for
the victim’s death is increased from Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) to
Fifty Thousand Pesos(P50,000.00) following the recent rulings of this Court,
the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Rollo, p. 14

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 40-41

^[3]
Rollo, p. 92

^[4]
G.R. No. L-37147, 22 August 1984, 131
SCRA 237

^[5]
Borromeo vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-39253, 24 August 1984, 131 SCRA 318

^[6]
G.R. Nos. 79039-41, 27 October 1989,
178 SCRA 722

^[7]
TSN, 30 October 1989, p. 6

^[8]
People vs. Simon, G.R. No.
56925, 21 May 1992, 209 SCRA 148