THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALEX AURELLA AND ANTONIO LOPEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

In an Information,^[1] dated
December 6, 1989, ALEX AURELLA and ANTONIO LOPEZ were accused of MURDER before
the Regional Trial Court (Branch 15) of Ligao, Albay. The crime was allegedly committed as follows:

“That on or about July 21, 1989, at 1:00 o’clock in the
morning, more or less, at Barangay 3, Municipality of Pioduran, Province of
Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another for a
common purpose, and with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack and stab with knives NAPOLEON RAZO, JR.,
hitting the latter on the different parts of his body, which caused his death,
to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.

“ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.”

The accused were arraigned on January 24, 1990,^[2]
pleaded not guilty and underwent trial.

The evidence show that in the evening of July 20, 1989, Lilian
Dolor, a fish dealer, was fast asleep in her house in Pioduran, Albay. She was, at that time, with her husband and
their six (6) children. Their helper,
Napoleon Razo, Jr., was sleeping on a sofa in the same house. In between the place where Napoleon and the
Dolors slept was a G.I. sheet partition with a small window.

At around one o’clock in the morning of July 21, 1989, Lilian
Dolor was awakened by the sound (kalabog) of a falling object. She
cast her eyes on her surroundings and saw accused Alex Aurella and Antonio
Lopez inside the house. Accused
proceeded to the place where Razo, Jr., was sleeping. Through the small opening, Lilian saw Alex Aurella and Antonio
Lopez repeatedly stab the sleeping Razo, Jr. Instinctively, she screamed: “No, no!” The other members of her family were awakened. Startled, the two (2) accused scampered
towards the seashore some eight meters away from the house.^[3]

Eduardo Dolor, husband of Lilian Dolor, and one Rodolfo Gabriel
reported the stabbing incident to Patrolman Alberto Aquino at the police
outpost of Barangay 3 (Zone 3) of Pioduran. Patrolman Aquino rushed to the scene of the crime where he was informed
that the victim was taken to Malacbalac District Hospital. He proceeded to the hospital and tried to
get the ante mortem statement of the victim. Unfortunately, the victim was unable to
speak. The victim expired.

The Autopsy Report of Rural Health Physician Ireneo D. Bisguera
of Malacbalac District Hospital, revealed that the victim sustained eight (8)
stab wounds. He died due to
“hypovolemic shock, secondary to severe blood loss, secondary to multiple
stab wound.”^[4]

Patrolman Aquino and his co-policemen conducted follow-up
investigation of the case. He received
information on the possible involvement of accused Alex Aurella and Antonio
Lopez. Thus, the policemen went to the
residence of accused Antonio Lopez and Alex Aurella, respectively. Antonio allegedly pointed to Alex as the
culprit. From Antonio’s house, the
policemen proceeded to the house of Maximo Aurella, father of accused Alex. It was past one o’clock in the morning of
July 21, 1989. Alex was roused from his
sleep by his father when the policemen arrived. Accused was clad only in briefs. Patrolman Aquino noticed bloodstains on the right knee and the middle
finger of the right hand of Alex. Thus,
the latter was brought to Malacbalac District Hospital for examination. Dr. Bisguera confirmed the presence of
bloodstains on the finger and knee of accused Aurella. Subsequently, accused Alex and Antonio were
taken to the police outpost for further questioning.

The defense is anchored on alibi. They alleged that at around seven thirty in the morning of June
20, 1989, Alex was in his father’s house in Zone 1, Pioduran, Albay. He allegedly dressed a chicken and cooked it
for his friend, Antonio Lopez. The
latter arrived at seven o’clock in the evening that same day. The two engaged in a drinking spree the
whole night. They ate the “pulutan” and consumed two (2) bottles of San
Miguel Gin from seven o’clock in the evening until midnight. At midnight, Maximo Aurella told both
accused to stop drinking. They obliged. Antonio Lopez went home and slept in his
house. Alex Aurella stayed in his
father’s house and slept. At past one
o’clock in the morning of July 21, 1989, accused Alex Aurella was roused from
his sleep by his father as the policemen, headed by Aquino, arrived. Policeman Aquino focused a flashlight on his
body. He noticed the bloodstains on
Alex’s knee and middle finger.

During the trial, Alex explained that the bloodstains could have
come from the chicken he dressed on July 20, 1989. Maximo Aurella corroborated the testimony of his son, Alex. He admitted, however, that he slept ahead of
his son.

After trial, both accused were found guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s
judgment reads:

“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, we (sic) find both accused,
Alex Aurelia (sic) and Antonio Lopez, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
felony of murder as penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and
hereby sentences each to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify
jointly and in solidum the heirs of Napoleon Razo in the sum of P30,000.00 and
to pay the cost.

“SO ORDERED.”

Both appealed from the judgment of conviction raising these
errors, viz:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT TO
THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES’ IMPROBABLE, INCONSISTENT, CONTRADICTORY AND
INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS’ DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIAL.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FOR MURDER BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

The judgment of conviction stands.

We find no cogent reason to depart from the settled principle
that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve full
faith and credence, having observed the demeanor of witnesses as they testify
on the witness stand.^[5]

Both accused-appellants were positively identified by Lilian
Dolor, as the killer of Napoleon Razo, Jr. The lone eyewitness gave a clear account of the stabbing incident. She testified:

“FISCAL CRISOSTOMO:

“Q:    On
July 21, at 1:00 o’clock (in the morning), do you remember of an incident that
happened inside of (sic) your house?

“LILIAN DOLOR:

“A:    Yes,
sir. I have (sic) heard a sound and
when I open(ed) my eyes I saw (the) two (2) of them, Alex
Aurella and Antonio Lopez.

“Q:    Why
were they inside of your house?

“A:    They
went inside and they stabbed Napoleon Razo.

“Q:    How
far were you when you saw Alex Aurella?

“A: At this distance.

“COURT:

About two (2) meters.

“FISCAL CRISOSTOMO:

“Q:    How
about the other accused, Antonio Lopez, how far were you?

“WITNESS:

“A:    They
were together. The same distance.

“Q:    How
were you able to recognized (sic) them when the incident happened at nighttime?

“A:    Inside
the house was “naanyagan” lighted.

“Q:    How
were you able to say that they were lighted?

“A:    Because
the place were (sic) lighted.

“x x x.

“Q:    When
you saw them where did they proceed?

“A:    Outside.

“Q:    Was
there a light outside?

“A:    There
was a light coming from the electric post.

“Q:    Where
did they proceed?

“A:    To
the seashore.

“Q:    How
far is your house from the seashore.

“A:    From
this point to that point.

“COURT:

About eight (8) meters.

“x x x.

“Q:    Did
you actually see the stabbing of the accused to Napoleon Razo?

“A:    Yes,
your honor.

“Q:    Who
stabbed Napoleon?

“A:    The
two (2) of them, the first one is Alex.

“Q:    Each
one of them made a stabbing?

“A:    Yes,
your honor.

“FISCAL CRISOSTOMO:

“Q:    You
said that you were awaken(ed) by the “calabog”, of what object?

“WITNESS:

“A:    They
bump against the bench.

(TSN, March 15, 1990, pp. 6-7).

During the cross-examination, Lilian
Dolor said:

ATTY. ENCINAREAL:

“Q:    When
you heard the falling sound you immediately look through the window?

“A:    Yes,
sir.

“x x x

“Q:    And
you saw the two accused stabbing repeatedly the sleeping Napoleon Razo?

“A:    Yes,
sir.

“Q:    And
you did not bother to shout to stop them in stabbing Napoleon Razo?

“A:    Yes,
sir.

“Q:    What
did you say?

“A:    No,
no.

“Q:    To
whom did you directed (sic) that word?

“A:   
I shouted to them.

“Q:    And
everybody in your house got up and witness the incident?

“Q:    Yes,
sir. All of them opened their eyes.

“A:    You
did not tell them to stop the escaping assailant?

“Q:    Most
of them are small children.”

(TSN, March 15, 1990, pp. 13-14).

The trial court gave a stamp of truth on the foregoing testimony
of Lilian Dolor. We note the
observation of the trial court on the eyewitness’ sincerity, viz:

“After scrutinizing the evidence on record, we (sic) find the
testimony of Lilian Dolor who
admittedly is a relative
of one Alex Aurella, and
who personally witnessed the actual stabbing of the victim Napoleon Razo by
herein two (2) accused, to be clear and convincing. Her version of the incident remained unshaken despite the clever
attempt by the defense counsel to discredit her story. Her
testimony appears credible as it was given in a natural, spontaneous and straight­forward
manner. Her gesture, inflection of
voice and demeanor on the witness stand especially on the cross-examination
through which she was exposed, further strengthened the credibility of her
testimony. By and large, her testimony
had all the earmarks of truth.”
(emphasis ours)

(Decision, p. 3; Rollo, p. 20).

The belated explanation of Alex that the bloodstains were
probably due to the chicken he dressed for his visitor Antonio Lopez is not
believable.

Alex testified that he dressed the chicken at seven thirty in the
morning of June 20, 1989. Thereafter,
he washed his hands. The drinking spree
occurred at around seven o’clock in the evening of the same day and lasted until
midnight.

On the other hand, Maximo Aurella alleged that after his son and
Antonio had consumed the two (2) bottles of gin, Alex and Antonio Lopez dressed
the chicken. Thereafter, they continued
drinking.^[6]

For his part, Antonio averred that the chicken was already cooked
when he arrived at Alex’s house.^[7] They
finished drinking the two (2) bottles of gin at around twelve midnight. Thereafter, he went home.

The conflicting testimonies of these defense witnesses show that
the explanation given by Alex Aurella is a mere afterthought and does not
deserve any credence.

Accused-appellants further aver that the testimony of the lone
eyewitness, Lilian Dolor, was contradicted by Patrolman Alberto Aquino who
stated that nobody could pinpoint who the perpetrators were when he conducted
the investigation at the scene of the crime.

The initial hesitation of Lilian Dolor to immediately identify
the accused-appellants as the
perpetrators of the crime at bench is not a ground to junk her
credibility. We take judicial notice of
the natural reluctance of most people to get involved and volunteer information
in criminal cases. Moreover, we note
that accused Alex Aurella is a relative of Lilian Dolor.^[8]

In his further effort to discredit Lilian Dolor as a witness,
Alex alleges that his “Tia Lilian” may have harbored ill-feelings
against him because two years ago, deceased Napoleon Razo, Jr., co-accused
Antonio Lopez and himself were involved in a frustrated homicide case. We find this untenable.

Other than his say-so, there was no other evidence presented that
Lilian Dolor was moved by improper motives to falsely testify against Alex, her
own relative, and accused Antonio. We
have ruled that: “When there is no
evidence indicating that the principal witness for the prosecution was moved by
improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so moved and his testimony
is entitled to full faith and credit.”^[9] Thus,
as between the self-serving testimony of the accused-appellants and the
positive declaration made by Lilian Dolor pointing to the accused-appellants as
the murderers of Napoleon Razo, Jr., the latter deserves greater credence. Further, in the case at bench, the place of
the incident was well-lighted, not to mention that both accused-appellants were
known to the eyewitness even prior to the stabbing incident. Thus, all things considered, we believe the
story of Lilian Dolor.

We hold that the trial court correctly rejected the defense of
alibi of accused Alex Aurella and Antonio Lopez. Alibi is a weak defense, particularly, when there is no proof
that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the
crime at the time of its commission.^[10]

It was established that prior to the stabbing incident, both accused-appellants
were at the house of Maximo Aurella at Zone 1, Pioduran, Albay.^[11]
They stopped drinking at midnight. Antonio Lopez testified that it would take him ten (10) minutes to
negotiate the distance between the house of Lilian Dolor and his house.^[12]
The stabbing incident occurred at about one o’clock in the early morning of
July 21, 1989. Assuming, arguendo, that Antonio went home
after the drinking spree, he had ample time to go to the house of Lilian Dolor
and commit the crime imputed against him. The same holds true for Alex Aurella since his father’s house is, more
or less, one (1) kilometer away from the house of Lilian Dolor.^[13]
It was not improbable for both accused-appellants to proceed to the scene of
the crime at around one o’clock in the early morning of July 21, 1989, after
their drinking spree.

There is no doubt in our mind that the crime committed was
murder. The killing of Napoleon Razo,
Jr. was qualified by treachery. The
victim was not in a position to defend himself as he was sleeping when he was
repeatedly stabbed to death by accused-appellants.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment of conviction
is affirmed. Accused Alex Aurella and
Antonio Lopez are meted a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. In line with this Court’s prevailing policy,
accused-appellants are ordered to indemnify the legal heirs of Napoleon Razo,
Jr., the sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). With costs against accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Original Records, p. 39.

^[2]
Original Records, p. 47.

^[3]
TSN, March 16, 1990, pp. 4-8.

^[4]
Exhibit “A”; Original Records, p. 7.

^[5]
People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No.
102409-10, December 21, 1992, 216 SCRA 754, 759-770.

^[6]
TSN, June 14, 1990, p. 6.

^[7]
TSN, September 26, 1990, p. 7.

^[8]
Eduardo Dolor, husband of Lilian Dolor, is a relative of the mother of accused
Alex Aurella.

^[9]
People vs. Gerente, G.R. No. 95847-48, March 10, 1993, 219 SCRA 756.

^[10]
People vs. Villagracia, G.R. No.
94471, March 1, 1993, 219 SCRA 212.

^[11]
Zone 1 is only 400 meters from Zone 3,
the place of incident.

^[12]
TSN, September 26, 1990, p. 16.

^[13]
TSN, June 14, 1990, pp. 12-13.