PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CELSO AMADOR, RESTY AMADOR AND FELIPE ROBLES, ACCUSED, CELSO AMADOR, APPELLANT.

This has reference to an appeal from the decision of Branch 49 of
the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Fourth Judicial
Region, dated August 22, 1990.

Accused were charged in Criminal Cases No. 6764, No. 6765, No.
6766, and No. 6776 with the crimes of destructive arson, frustrated murder, and
murder in separate informations, reading as follows:

Criminal Case No. 6764

That on or about the 8th day of January, 1987, in the evening at
Sitio Limbasan, Barangay Ipilan, Municipality of Brooke’s Point, Province of
Palawan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the
above-named accused conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping
one another with evident premeditation and treachery and with intent to kill,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
stab with a bladed weapon, to wit: a knife, one Flora Erader, hitting her in
various vital parts of her body and inflicting upon her injuries which would
ordinarily cause her death thus performing all the acts of execution which
would have produced the crime of murder as a consequence but nevertheless did
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of all the accused,
that is by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to Flora Erader
which prevented her death.

CONTRARY TO LAW and in violation of Article 248 in relation to
Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.

Criminal Case No. 6765;

That on or about the 8th day of January, 1987 at Sitio Limbasan, Barangay
Ipilan, Municipality of Brooke’s Point, Province of Palawan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously set fire to the house of
one JORGE IRADER, thereby causing complete destruction to the said house and
personal belongings therein in the total amount of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00)
PESOS Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of said JORGE IRADER in
the aforesaid amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW and in violation of Article 320 of the Revised
Penal Code.

Criminal Case No. 6766; and

That on or about the 8th day of January, 1987 at Sitio Limbasan,
Barangay Ipilan, Municipality of Brooke’s Point, Province of Palawan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping
one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously set fire
to the house of one TEOFILO BANCAIREN, thereby causing complete destruction to
the said house and personal belongings therein in the total amount of FIFTY
THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice
of said Teofilo Bancairen in the aforesaid amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW and in violation of Article 320 of the Revised
Penal Code.

Criminal Case No. 6776.

That on or about the 8th day of January, 1987 at Sitio Limbasan,
Barangay Ipilan, Municipality of Brooke’s Point, Province of Palawan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
assisting one another, with evident premeditation and treachery, armed with
bladed weapon, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and stab one DANIEL ANDRADE, hitting him in the various vital parts of
his body and inflicting upon him multiple injuries which were the direct and
immediate cause of his death shortly thereafter.

CONTRARY TO LAW and in violation of Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code. (pp. 66-67, Rollo)

Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty. The four cases were tried jointly. On August 22, 1990, the trial court rendered
a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court renders judgment in
Criminal Case No. 6764 finding Resty Amador guilty of the crime of FRUSTRATED
MURDER as defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code as
principal by direct participation without mitigating circumstances, and
sentences him to suffer imprisonment of from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and
ONE (1) DAY of PRISION CORRECCIONAL to TEN (10) YEARS OF PRISION MAYOR with all
its accessory penalties, and to indemnify Flora Irader the sum of Eight
Thousand (P8,000.00) Pesos in actual damages. Celso Amador and Felipe Robles are acquitted of the charge of Frustrated
Murder.

In Criminal Case No. 6776, the Court finds Resty Amador guilty of
the crime of MURDER, as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code, as principal by direct participation without mitigating
circumstances and sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA,
with all its accessory penalties, and to indemnify the heirs of Daniel Andrade
the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos for the death of the deceased;
Six Thousand Seventy-Nine (P6,079.00) Pesos for funeral and other incidental
expenses; Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos as moral damages and Ten Thousand
(P10,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages. Celso Amador and Felipe Robles are acquitted of the charge of Murder for
insufficiency of evidence.

In Criminal Cases Nos. 6765 and 6766, the Court finds all three
accused guilty of the crime of DESTRUCTIVE ARSON as defined and penalized under
Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and sentences them to suffer
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA on two (2) counts, with all its accessory
penalties, and to indemnify Teofilo Bancairen the amount of Five Thousand
(P5,000.00) Pesos and Jorge Irader, the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00)
Pesos as actual damages and to pay the costs. (p. 81, Rollo)

Atty. Zoilo C. Cruzat filed a notice of appeal for accused Celso
Amador and Felipe Robles, while no appeal was interposed by the other accused,
Resty Amador. A brief was thereafter
filed by Atty. Cruzat only for Celso Amador, for which reason a resolution was
issued by this Court on July 14, 1993 requiring him to show cause why he failed
to file a brief for Felipe Robles and to forthwith file said brief (p. 127, Rollo). In compliance therewith, Atty. Cruzat filed
a Manifestation stating, among other things, that Felipe Robles had escaped
during the trial below. Consequently,
we issued a resolution on August 25, 1993, to the effect that the appeal of
Felipe Robles is dismissed. Withal,
this decision shall deal only with appeal of Celso Amador who assigns the
following alleged errors:

I.   THE LOWER COURT ERRED
IN GIVING CREDIT TO THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES NAMELY: RODRIGO
REVILLO AND ORESTES FERNANDO AND IN NOT GIVING CREDIT TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
DEFENSE.

II.  THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT APPELLANT AMONG WITH
FELIPE ROBLES WERE POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED BY THE SAID PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT CONSPIRACY AMONG THE ACCUSED WAS DULY ESTABLISHED.

IV. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT MERELY BECAUSE, AS APPELLANT BELIEVES, HE OFFERED THE
DEFENSE OF ALIBI. (p. 1, Appellant’s
Brief, p. 99, Rollo)

The facts of the case with respect to Criminal Cases No. 6765 and
No. 6766, destructive arson, as established by the evidence of record, are as
follows:

On the night of January 8, 1989, at around 7 o’clock, Rodrigo Revillo
was walking home from his farm. When he
was about twenty meters away from the house of Teofilo Bancairen, which was
along his route, Revillo saw three men, Resty Amador, Felipe Robles, and
accused-appellant Celso Amador, setting fire to the house of Bancairen. The three were all known to Revillo. Revillo saw Resty Amador enter the house and
bring out a lighted gas lamp. Resty set
fire to the cogon grass roof. Then
Resty Amador gave the lamp to Robles who poured gas on the wall of the house
and lit it. Robles passed on the lamp
to Celso Amador who likewise poured gas on another side of the house and set it
on fire. Revillo then shouted,
“Why did you burn that house?” Without waiting for an answer and
before the house completely burn down, Revillo ran away.

Also, at around 7 o’clock that same night, Orestes Fernando while
around fifty meters away from Bancairen’s house saw Celso Amador and Felipe
Robles setting fire to Bancairen’s house with a torch. Resty Amador was with Celso Amador and
Felipe Robles. Although Fernando did
not see Resty Amador participate in setting fire to the house, Resty Amador
admitted during the trial that he took part in burning Bancairen’s house.

Thereafter, Resty Amador, Celso Amador, and Felipe Robles went to
the house of Jorge Irader, some 300 meters away from the house of Bancairen,
and set Irader’s house on fire. The
burning of Irader’s house was witnessed by Fernando who was around 30 meters
away.

Accused-appellant assails the testimony of prosecution witnesses
Rodrigo Revillo and Orestes Fernando, contending that the testimony of said
witnesses is not worthy of belief. Revillo testified that his house is around one kilometer away from the
house of Bancairen and that his farm is approximately 1/2 kilometer from his
house, and that in going to his farm from his house or vice-versa, he passes by
the house of Bancairen. Accused-appellant claims that from said testimony “it could be
concluded that his farm is situated between the house of Teofilo Bancairen and
his house”, and “hence when he claimed to be walking his way to his
house, it means that he was walking away from the house of Teofilo Bancairen
and it is impossible for him, while on that process, to come near at a distance
of 20 meters from the house of Teofilo Bancairen.” (pp. 12-13, Appellant’s
Brief.) We are not impressed by such argument. Revillo testified that he had to pass by Bancairen’s house in going to
his farm. Thus on his way to his house
from his farm, he chanced upon the three accused setting fire to the house of
Bancairen.

Accused-appellant further derides the testimony of Revillo that
after accused Felipe Robles received from Resty Amador the gas lamp and removed
its cover and poured gas on the wall of the house of Bancairen he handed it
over to Celso Amador who again removed the cover and poured gas on the other
side of the house. Accused-appellant
asks rhetorically, “How could Celso Amador remove the cover of the gas
lamp when it was already removed by Felipe Robles? How could Celso Amador pour
the gas on the other side of the wall when the same was already poured by
Felipe Robles?” (pp. 13­-14, Appellant’s Brief.) We fail to apprehend
anything wrong or illogical in the narration of witness Revillo. Felipe Robles must have recapped the lamp so
that the gas would not needlessly spill and he must have left some gas for
Celso Amador and Felipe Robles to pour on the other side of the house. Further, accused-appellant would cast doubt
on the testimony of Revillo that he recognized the three accused from a
distance of 20 meters at night when the only light came from the gas lamp. It bears emphasis that Revillo was familiar
with the malefactors, including accused-appellant, having known them for quite
sometime and having worked with them at one time or another doing farm
work. Then too, there was sufficient
light to enable witness Revillo to recognize the accused, for other than the
light from the gas lamp, there was a moon that night, shining with sufficient brightness,
and the flames of a burning house were even brighter. Verily, the flames alone of a gas lamp are bright enough for
identification (People vs.
Almenario, 172 SCRA 268 [1989]). Where conditions of visibility are favorable
and the witness does not appear to be biased against the man on the dock, his
or her assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be
accepted (People vs.
Espejo, 186 SCRA 627 [1990]). We, therefore, hold that under the
circumstances of the case, the identification of the accused by witness Revillo
is credible and reliable.

Accused-appellant points out what he calls a glaring
inconsistency between the testimony of witness Revillo and that of witness
Orestes Fernando in that while Revillo testified that accused-appellant set
fire to the house of Bancairen by means of a gas lamp, Fernando testified that
he saw accused-appellant set fire to the house of Bancairen using a torch. It must be noted that Revillo was only 20
meters away from the three accused persons when they set on fire the house of
Bancairen, while Fernando was about 50 meters away. At that distance, Fernando could have mistaken the gas lamp for a
torch. The essential fact elicited from
the testimony of said witnesses is that they positively identified the three
accused as the perpetrators of the arson.

Another circumstance which accused-appellant raises to discredit
the testimony of Revillo and Fernando is Fernando’s testimony that he did not
hear Revillo shout at the accused while they were burning Bancairen’s
house. Such argument, however, fails to
consider the circumstance that Revillo was 20 meters from the house of
Bancairen while Fernando was 50 meters away, giving us a situation wherein 70
meters separated Revillo and Fernando. At that distance it would not be surprising for Fernando not to hear
Revillo shouting. The noise of the
crackling flames would have also added to stifling the shout of Revillo.

It bears emphasis that Revillo and Fernando are disinterested
witnesses and not a shred of
evidence appears on record that they are suborned witnesses. Accused-appellant Celso Amador himself
admitted on the witness stand that he holds no grudge against Revillo. Their testimony, therefore, must be accorded
full faith and credence.

Finally, accused-appellant Celso Amador interposes the defense of
alibi in his bid for acquittal. He
testified that at the time of the commission of the crime he was fast asleep in
his room with his wife and that he did not leave his room after going to bed,
until the next morning. Alibi is one of
the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an accused, especially where
there is direct testimony of an eyewitness duly corroborated by that of
another, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because
of the ease of its fabrication and the difficulty of checking or rebutting it (People
vs. Bagasala, 39 SCRA 236 [1971]; People vs. Cornelio,
39 SCRA 435 [1971]). Alibi to be
believed must be supported by the physical impossibility of the accused to have
been at the scene of the crime (People vs. Brioso, 37 SCRA
336 [1971]). Accused-appellant Celso
Amador’s house was only 2 kilometers, more or less, from the vicinity of the
crimes, and it was, thus, not physically impossible for him to have been
present at the scene of the crimes at the time they were committed and
thereafter return home, appearing as innocent as a child. Moreover, the defense of alibi cannot
prevail over positive testimony of witnesses (People vs. Mercado,
38 SCRA 168 [1971]). Celso Amador’s
defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of Revillo and
Fernando that he was one of the perpetrators in the burning of the houses of
Bancairen and Jorge Irader.

Accused-appellant, of course, maintains that because his alibi
was sustained by the trial court when he was acquitted in Criminal Case No.
6764 (Frustrated Murder) and Criminal Case No. 6776 (Murder), it should
likewise be given credit in the arson cases.

A scrutiny of the appealed decision does not support this
contention. The acquittal in the murder
and frustrated murder cases was due to the prosecution’s failure to present
proof beyond reasonable doubt on accused-appellant’s participation in said
crimes. The trial court merely stated
that “as to the allegations of Flora Irader and Daniel Manlapig that Celso
Amador and Felipe Robles were present during the stabbing, the Court
entertained doubt as to the truthfulness of their declarations.” The court
did not accept accused-appellant’s alibi as true. Moreover, the conviction of accused-appellant for arson, is based
on the testimony of Revillo and Fernando, and not on the testimony of Irader
and Manlapig.

Finally, it is contended that the prosecution failed to establish
that there was conspiracy among the accused. This contention is a superfluity. Nowhere in the appealed decision did the trial court make any finding
that there was conspiracy among the accused. There is no necessity to make a finding of conspiracy to convict all the
accused of the crime of arson. There is
copious evidence on record to show that each accused committed arson by direct
participation. The evidence clearly
shows that each accused committed the overt acts of arson. As above narrated, each accused set fire to
the houses of Bancairen and Jorge Irader. Independent of the acts of his co-accused, accused?appellant’s own
overt acts constituted arson.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in
toto.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, (Acting Chairman), Romero, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

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