PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LUCIANO ALBORES Y TARAN, ALIAS DODONG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a joint decision in Criminal Case Nos.
4340 and 4342 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9 of Malaybalay, Bukidnon,* finding
the accused, now appellant, Luciano
Albores y Taran guilty of Murder and Frustrated Murder.

The Information in Criminal Case No. 4340, dated 17 July 1987,
alleged:

“The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses LUCIANO
ALBORES y Taran alias Dodong who was born on October 26, 1962, at Bansalan,
Davao del Sur of the crime of MURDER, committed as follows, to wit:

That on or about the 10th day of May, 1987 at 4:00 o’clock dawn
more or less, at Purok 2, sitio Ipunan, barangay Romago-oc, municipality of
Kibawe, province of Bukidnon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill by means of
treachery and evident premeditation, with the use of bladed weapon, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally attack, stab EUGENIA GUMAPAC
inflicting upon her person the following injuries x x x which caused the instantaneous
death of EUGENIA GUMAPAC x x x.

Contrary to and in violation to (sic) 248 of the Revised Penal
Code.”^[1]

The Information in Criminal Case No. 4342, dated 21 July 1987,
reads:

“The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses LUCIANO
ALBORES y Taran alias Dodong who was born on October 26, 1962, at Bansalan,
Davao del Sur, of the crime of FRUSTRATED MURDER, committed as follows,
to wit:

That on or about the 10th day of May, 1987, at 4:00 o’clock
dawn, more or less, at Purok 2, sitio Ipunan, barangay Romago-oc, municipality
of Kibawe, province of Bukidnon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill by means of
treachery and abuse of superior strength, with the use of a bladed weapon
(knife) did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally stab ELLEN
GUMAPAC inflicting upon her person the following injuries x x x which injuries
would have caused the death of the said ELLEN GUMAPAC had it not been for the
timely, medical assistance accorded her; x x x

Contrary to and in violation to (sic) Article 248 in relation to
Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code.”^[2]

After trial, the court a quo on 18 April 1991
rendered a “Joint Decision”, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds the
accused Luciano Albores GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder
qualified by treachery, under Criminal Case No. 4340 as defined and penalized
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Considering the presence of one aggravating circumstance of dwelling
which is offset by a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, Exhibit
“E”, the Court hereby sentences the accused Luciano Albores y Taran,
alias Dodong to a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the sum of
P30,000.00 as death indemnity.

As to Criminal Case No. 4342 for Frustrated Murder, the Court finds
the said accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated
Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 (sic) of the Revised Penal
Code in relation to Article 50 (sic) of the same code, and hereby sentences him
to an indeterminate penalty of Six, (6) years of Prision Correccional as
Minimum to Twelve (12) years of Prision Mayor as Maximum. x x x x”^[3]

In his appeal, Albores contends that the trial court erred in
giving more credence to the prosecution’s evidence and totally disregarding the accused’s alibi.^[4]

The oral testimony of Ellen Gumapac, the victim in the case for
frustrated murder, who was the lone eye-witness for the prosecution,
established the following as summarized by the trial court:

“x x x it appears that in the evening of May 9, 1987, while
she and her mother, Eugenia Gumapac, the victim in Crim. Case No. 4340 for
Murder, were sleeping in their house located at barangay Romago-oc of
the municipality of Kibawe, Bukidnon, their house were stoned (sic). They then closed the windows and doors of
their house. Then, somebody went up their house whom the witness Ellen
Gumapac recognized to be Luciano Albores, the accused in both cases. Once Luciano Albores was upstairs, he
stabbed Eugenia Gumapac and dragged her behind her house. At this point in time, Ellen Gumapac
remained in their house, but later on, ran toward their neighbor’s house but
was chased and caught by Luciano Albores, who dragged her at a distance of 3
meters behind their house from where her mother was likewise dragged, and there
allegedly sexually abused. This
particular testimony was disregarded since the accused was not charged with the
crime of Rape. Ellen Gumapac was then dragged after she was stabbed by Luciano
Albores, towards Moleta river which has a distance of 100 meters to their
house, and their (sic) stabbed causing her to sustain physical injuries
consisting of stab wounds on the left chest, left lumber (sic) area and
epigastrum x x x. Ellen was dragged to
the Moleta river and there made her float in the river and carried by its
current. She managed to swim at (sic)
the other bank of the river, and proceeded to the house of Sergio Mendez x x
x. Then she was given first aid by
Mendez, and later brought to Maramag hospital for treatment of her 3 stabbed
(sic) wounds x x x and stayed in the hospital until May 25, 1987.”^[5]

Accused Luciano Albores interposed the defense of alibi, claiming that he was at
Kanapolo, Magsaysay, Davao del Sur which is about two hundred (200) kilometers
away, at the time of the incident.^[6]
Defense witnesses Martino Antipuesto and Gonzalo Padrigo testified that they
saw the accused attend the 7:00 – 9:00 a.m. mass at Kanapulo on 10 May 1987.^[7]
The accused also testified that he returned to Romago-oc only on 12 May 1987 at 6:00 p.m.^[8] and
that he went back to Davao on 13 May 1987,^[9]
subsequently returning to Romago-oc on 15 May 1987 at 6:00 p.m.^[10]
Epifania Albores, the accused’s mother, testified that her son arrived at
Romago-oc on 12 May 1987 and left for Davao the next day.^[11]
Antipuesto added that as Purok leader of Kanapulo, Magsaysay, Davao del Sur, he
has personal knowledge that the accused stayed at Kanapulo from 8 January up to
15 May 1987.^[12]
Perdigo added that he saw the accused on 11 May 1987 at 9:00 a.m. at the precinct
in Kanapulo when he cast his
vote.^[13]

The rebuttal witness for the prosecution, Myrna Casinabe,
testified however that on 11 May 1989, as chairman of the election board of
Precinct No. 29 at Romago-oc, she personally witnessed the accused cast his
vote sometime before 12:00 noon. The
prosecution presented the list of voters of precinct number 29 containing the
accused’s signature and thumbmark, and Myrna Casinabe’s signature.^[14]
Casinabe added that she had known the accused since his elementary days.^[15]

The accused testified as a sur-rebuttal witness and denied that
the signature and thumbmark on the list of voters were his own.^[16]

The trial court, in convicting the accused of both crimes, relied
on the “honesty and candor” of Ellen Gumapac, noting that she was of
poor intelligence making her incapable of fabricating facts so serious as to
condemn the accused against whom she had no ill feelings nor evil motive to
falsely point to him as the assailant.^[17]

The trial court did not give credence to the accused’s alibi
finding that it was a “brazen lie and a deliberate fabrication of
fact.”^[18]
The court concluded that the alibi was belied by the testimony of Myrna
Casinabe which conflicted with the allegation that the accused was not in
Romago-oc on 11 May 1987.^[19]

The well-settled rule is that alibi is one of the weakest
defenses that can be resorted to by an accused, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also
because of its easy fabrication. We
have repeatedly held that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive
Identification of the accused by witnesses for the prose­cution and that to
establish it, the accused must show that he was at some other place for such a period of time that it was
impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed at
the time of its commission.^[20]

We however must not lose sight of the fact that the constitutional presumption of innocence
guaranteed to every individual is of primary importance and courts should not
precipitately conclude that a person is guilty when the alibi presented appears to be weak. It is true that alibi is a weak defense but it is likewise true that an alibi,
albeit genuine, cannot in all cases be adequately established. Thus, we held through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes that “The rule that alibi
must be satisfactorily proven was never
intended to change the burden of proof in criminal cases.” ^[21]

In the case at bar, the trial court rejected the accused’s alibi
due mainly to the testimony of Myrna Casinabe. It should be pointed out however that the accused’s testimony was
contradicted by Casinabe only in so far as his whereabouts on 11 May 1987
are concerned but not is whereabouts
in the morning of 10 May 1987, the date of the commission of the
offense. The accused’s right to be
presumed innocent dictates that his alibi should not fail on this ground,
specially when two (2) witnesses testified that they had seen the accused at around
7:00 a.m. on 10 May 1987 at a church about two hundred (200) kilometers away
from the scene of the crime. Furthermore, even if we consider that there was no physical
impossibility for the accused to be present at the scene of the crime, there
was still the need for the prosecution to have proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt.

Ellen Gumapac testified that she did not tell Sergio Mendez who
their assailant was because she was afraid.^[22] In a
sworn statement made by Sergio Mendez,^[23] he
stated that Ellen Gumapac categorically stated that she did not recognize the
assailant but only stated that he wore yellow short pants and a red
jacket. Unfortunately, the counsel for
both sides failed to elicit a clarification regarding the reason why Ellen failed
to name the assailant, except that she said she was afraid. The record also fails to show when Ellen
first pointed to the accused as her assailant before the accused was
“invited” by the police to the hospital where Ellen was confined and
she identified him as the culprit. We
however find it contrary to human behavior even considering Ellen’s poor degree
of intelligence, for a victim suffering from serious and potentially fatal
wounds to fail to immediately identify her assailant and instead say that she
did not recognize him. Ellen saw her
assailant leave while she was floating down the river so she then had no immediate fear of further injury.^[24] The unexplained initial silence of
Ellen taken together with the fact that it was highly improbable for the
accused to be attending mass about
two hundred (200) kilometers away from the crime scene, less than three (3)
hours after its commission, puts in doubt
the moral certainty of the guilt of the accused-appellant.

WHEREFORE,     the
joint decision appealed from is REVERSED and the accused-appellant is hereby
ACQUITTED, based on reasonable
doubt. He is ordered immediately released from detention unless he is
held for some other legal cause
or ground.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Griño-Aquino, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

* Presided over by Judge Alejo G.
Rola

^[1]
Rollo, p. 10

^[2]
Rollo, p. 12

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 28-29

^[4]
Rollo, p. 37

^[5]
Rollo, pp. 24 – 25

^[6]
TSN, pp. 56-57, 11 October 1989

^[7]
TSN, p. 42, 11 October 1989

^[8]
TSN, pp. 57-58, 11 October 1989

^[9]
TSN, pp. 58-59, 11 October 1989

^[10]
TSN, pp. 59, 11 October 1989

^[11]
TSN, p. 54, 11 October 1989

^[12]
TSN, p. 39, 23 May 1989

^[13]
TSN, p. 48, 11 October 1989

^[14]
Exhibit “D”

^[15]
TSN, pp. 71-74, 6 September 1990

^[16]
TSN, pp. 80-81, 24 January 1991

^[17]
Rollo, p. 27

^[18]
Rollo, p. 28

^[19]
Rollo, p. 28

^[20]
People v. Devaras, G.R. No. 48009, 3 February 1992, 205 SCRA 676

^[21]
People v. Fraga, L-12005, 31 August 1960, 109 Phil. 241, 250

^[22]
TSN, p. 17, 23 November 1987

^[23]
Exhibit “2”

^[24]
TSN, p. 9, 23 November 1987