PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO ARROYO AND RITO MINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Arroyo

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Francisco Arroyo and Rito Mina for the killing of Nonito Villarosa. The two accused were first cousins who, the prosecution charged, conspired to stab the victim to death on a trail in Balud, Masbate. The case matters for the bar because it gathers in one decision the rules on credibility of witnesses, the weakness of alibi, the burden of an accused who pleads self-defense, the nature of conspiracy, and the distinction between treachery and abuse of superior strength as qualifying circumstances in murder.

Procedural History

The two accused were indicted for murder before the Regional Trial Court of Masbate. After trial, the court convicted both of murder, appreciating superior strength qualified by treachery, offset in Arroyo's case by voluntary surrender, and sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty, with an indemnity of 30,000 pesos. Both appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the finding of guilt but modified the penalties: Arroyo, with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, was given an indeterminate sentence, while Mina was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and the indemnity was raised to 50,000 pesos. Because the Court of Appeals imposed reclusion perpetua, the case was certified and the entire record elevated to the Supreme Court under Section 13, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Facts

On the night of July 9, 1988, there was a dance party in Barangay Guinbanwahan, Balud, Masbate. Among those present were the two accused, who are first cousins, the victim Nonito Villarosa, and Giddy Diaz. All four were acquaintances. After the party, at around two o'clock in the morning, the four walked home toward Barangay Dao. Along the way, Mina had a heated argument with Villarosa over Mina's indebtedness to him.

Upon reaching sitio Tumalonton, Diaz heard Villarosa shout that Mina had stabbed him. Diaz and Arroyo were following a few meters behind. Diaz ran to help but Arroyo pushed him away, and Arroyo then stabbed Villarosa twice in the back while Mina held the victim's left arm. Diaz fled to Barangay Dao and reported the incident to the victim's parents. At around six thirty in the morning, Arroyo surrendered at the Balud police station and handed over the knife. The body was found some three hours later under buri palms, about two hundred meters from the scene. The post-mortem report showed five stab wounds, including deep wounds to the chest and back, and the cause of death was severe hemorrhage.

Mina denied any participation, claiming he was asleep at home in Barangay Dao, about five kilometers away, which is the defense of alibi. Arroyo admitted stabbing the victim but claimed self-defense, saying Villarosa drew a knife during an altercation over a chicken, that they grappled, and that he wrested the knife and stabbed the victim.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in giving weight to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the eyewitness Giddy Diaz, and in disregarding the evidence for the defense.
• Whether or not the guilt of both accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the defenses of alibi and self-defense.
• Whether or not the killing was attended by treachery or by abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance.
• Whether or not the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals were correct.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

Whenever the Court of Appeals imposes a penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, it shall render judgment but shall refrain from entering the same in its judgment book and shall certify the case and elevate the entire record to the Supreme Court for review.

This is the procedural basis for the case reaching the Supreme Court rather than becoming final in the Court of Appeals.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the accused were convicted, provides:

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

This is the provision that supplies the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength and fixes the penalty for murder.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve the highest respect, because the trial judge observes their demeanor and can discern whether they are telling the truth. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Giddy Diaz credible. It rejected the attack on Diaz for not rescuing the victim, explaining that the reaction of persons confronted with a shocking incident varies, and that minor inconsistencies do not impair credibility but may even confirm that witnesses were not rehearsed.

On the second issue, the Court held that Arroyo's plea of self-defense failed. An accused who invokes self-defense must prove it by clear and convincing evidence and must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution's. The number, location, and depth of the five stab wounds belied self-defense, and even on Arroyo's own account he stabbed the victim twice in the back after he had already wrested the knife and was no longer in danger. As for Mina, the Court held that alibi is a weak defense that cannot overcome positive identification, and that Mina failed to show it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene, which was only five kilometers from his home.

On the third issue, the Court found conspiracy, since the acts of both accused revealed a common purpose to assault the victim and a concerted execution of that purpose. It held that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. The Court, however, entertained doubt on treachery and resolved it in favor of the accused, holding that Mina's holding the victim did not necessarily demonstrate treachery because there was no showing that it was a mode of commission deliberately adopted. What it did prove was abuse of superior strength, since both accused pooled their combined strength and weapons against an unarmed victim.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly modified the penalties, imposing an indeterminate sentence on Arroyo in view of his voluntary surrender and reclusion perpetua on Mina, with an indemnity of 50,000 pesos.

Doctrine

First, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded the highest respect on appeal, and minor inconsistencies do not destroy credibility. Second, alibi is a weak defense that cannot prevail over positive identification, and it fails where there is no physical impossibility for the accused to be at the scene. Third, an accused who pleads self-defense bears the burden of proving it by clear and convincing evidence and must rely on the strength of his own evidence. Fourth, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony and decide to commit it, and it may be proved by circumstantial evidence showing a common design and concerted action; once established, the act of one is the act of all. Fifth, treachery requires a mode of attack deliberately adopted that renders the victim defenseless, while abuse of superior strength is shown by the deliberate pooling of combined strength and weapons against an unarmed victim.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in full, sustaining the conviction of both accused for murder and the penalties and indemnity it imposed.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: alibi and self-defense are both weak shields, for alibi crumbles against positive identification and self-defense must stand on the accused's own clear and convincing evidence. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between treachery and abuse of superior strength, and the rule that conspiracy may be inferred from the concerted acts of the perpetrators.