THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRUCTUOSO MANCAO, BENEDICTO MANCAO @ AMAY, JOEL MANCAO @ TIBOY, FAUSTO REPONTE, PEDRO OPSIMAR AND JUANCHO DECATORIA, ACCUS…

Some good things never last … as the song goes, a saying which
truly applies to the instant case wherein a newly-wed couple was attacked just
a few hours after their wedding ceremony causing the death of the husband, to
the grief and loneliness of the wife.

This is an appeal taken by the six appellants from a joint
Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch XXXII,
finding appellants Fructuoso Mancao and Benedicto “Amay” Mancao
guilty of the crime of Frustrated Murder in Criminal Case No. 3786 and finding
the six appellants, Fructuoso Mancao, Benedicto “Amay” Mancao, Joel
“Tiboy” Mancao, Fausto Reponte, Pedro Opsimar and Juancho Decatoria,
guilty of the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No. 3787. Inasmuch as the two cases arose from the
same incident involving the same protagonists, the trial court rendered a joint
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing considerations, judgment is
hereby rendered:

1. In Criminal Case No. 3786, the Court finds accused Fructuoso
Mancao and Benedicto Mancao, alias “Amay”, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder, penalized under Art. 248 in relation
to Arts. 250 and 50 of the Revised Penal Code, but appreciating in favor of
Fructuoso Mancao the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, without
any aggravating circumstance to offset the same, hereby sentences him, after
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to suffer an indeterminate prison term
ranging from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision
correctional as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as maximum, and co-accused Benedicto Mancao is sentenced to suffer an
Indeterminate prison term ranging from six (6) years, and One (1) day of prision
mayor to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, to
indemnify jointly and solidarily offended party Marcelina Pat the sum of
P6,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs. The weapons used in the commission of the felony are hereby
confiscated in favor of the government. The jailer is directed to make the proper reduction of the period during
which the defendants were under preventive custody by reason of this case in
accordance with law.

2. In Crim. Case No. 3787, the Court finds accused Fructuoso
Mancao, Benedicto Mancao, alias “Amay”, Joel Mancao, alias
“Tiboy”, Fausto Reponte, Pedro Opsimar and Juancho Decatoria, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, penalized under Art. 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, but appreciating in favor of Fructuoso Mancao the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender without any aggravating
circumstance to offset the same, hereby sentences Fructuoso Mancao to suffer a
prison term ranging from seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day
to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal; with respect to defendants
Benedicto Mancao, alias “Amay”; Joel Mancao, alias “Tiboy”; Fausto
Reponte, Pedro Opsimar, and Juancho Decatoria, the Court hereby sentences each
one of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua (life
imprisonment), and for all the defendants in this case, to indemnify jointly
and severally the heirs of deceased Artemio Pat the sum of P12,000.00 and to
pay the costs. The weapons used in the
commission of the felony are hereby confiscated in favor of the
government.”^[1]

As borne out from the records, the facts of the case are as
follows:

It was in the morning of October 20, 1979, when Artemio Pat and
Lucy Lapira decided to exchange marriage vows. The wedding party was held at the bride’s residence in Talosian, Sta.
Catalina, Negros Oriental. At about
7:00 in the evening, on their way home to Artemio’s home at sitio Malbog,
Artemio’s group was waylaid and attacked by the six herein appellants. At the time of the attack, Artemio’s group
was walking on single file along a foot path near the place of appellant
Mancaos. Marcelina Pat was ahead,
followed by Lucy Lapira, then Artemio Pat and behind him was Melchor
Isong. Fructuoso Mancao suddenly
attacked Marcelina Pat with a scythe hitting and wounding her on her right arm,
while Benedicto Mancao hacked and wounded her forehead and the back of her head
with the use of a bolo.^[2]
It is at this point when Fructuoso Mancao said, “We will kill you
all.”^[3]
Almost simultaneously, Artemio Pat was hacked by Joel “Tiboy”
Mancao. The two (Artemio and Tiboy)
wrestled and grappled with each other. The rest of the defendants ganged up on Artemio using bolos, scythe,
“chaco”, and bow and arrow.^[4]
One of the appellants later shouted, “Watch out because Artemio ‘Alon’ was
able to grab a weapon.”^[5]
Accused-appellant Fausto Reponte shot Artemio with an arrow which had a
metallic point. (Exhibit “B”)
Juancho Decatoria wielded his “chaco” which produced a whizzing sound.^[6]
Lucy Lapira together with Melchor Isong pulled away the wounded Marcelina
Pat. For fear of being attacked once
more by Fructuoso’s group, Marcelina, Lucy and Melchor left the lifeless body
of Artemio behind and proceeded for home.

Marcelina was admitted and treated at the Bayawan Emergency
Hospital, evidenced by a Medical Certificate (Exhibit “C”),
sustaining the following injuries:

“1. Hacked
wound, 1 1/2 inches in length with linear fracture skull, frontal, left;

“2. Incised
wound, 1 1/2 inches in length, involving subcutaneous tissue occipitsal area,
medial, left;

“3. Incised
wound, 2 1/2 inches in length, involving subcutaneous tissue arm, mid-area
anterior surface, right.”

A post mortem examination (Exhibit “E”) was conducted
on the cadaver of Artemio Pat at 3:10 P.M., the following day, October 21,1979
at the place of the incident, the findings of which are the following:

“1. Stab wound,
1/4 inch long, penetrating just above the xiphisterval notch at the midline and
anterior aspect of the neck, exiting out as a 1/8 inch long wound at the left
lateral aspect of the base of the neck.

“2. Stab wound, 3 1/2 inches long, penetrating at
the level of the 4th intercostal space at the midclavicular line and exiting
out as a 1/2 inch long incised wound at
the level of 3rd intercostal space, an inch to the midline of the right
posterior chest wall.

“3. Incised wound, 1 1/2 inches long, 1/8 inch
deep at the dorsal or volvar aspect of the left hand.

“4. Stab wound,
1 1/2 inches long, 3/8 inch deep at the upper 3rd antero-lateral aspect of the
right leg.

“5. Stab wound,
2 inches long 3/8 inch deep at the antero-lateral aspect and middle 3rd of the
left leg.

“6. Stab wound, 2
inches long, 1/2 inch deep, over the left scapular area of the back.

“7. Incised wound, 8
inches long, 3/8 inch deep at the middle 3rd of the left posterior chest
wall.”

CONCLUSION: Death can be
attributed to Hypovolmic or circulatory shock secondary to massive loss of
blood due to multiple stab wounds.”

Appellants invoked self-defense in justification for the killing
of the deceased and alibi.

Appellants Joel “Tiboy” Mancao, Juancho Decatoria,
Fausto Reponte and Pedro Opsimar declared in their testimonies that at the time
of the incident, they were in Hagopina, Sta. Catalina.^[7]
This defense of alibi is the weakest of all defenses in criminal law. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive and
credible testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the accused committed the
crime.^[8]
Jurisprudence on this point is so abundant that it is needless to cite any
more. For the defense of alibi to
prosper, it must not only be shown that the accused was at some other place at
the time of the incident but it was physically impossible for the accused to
have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.^[9]

At the time of the incident, all appellants were neighbors of
eyewitnesses Marcelina Pat and Melchor Isong; that they were known to the said
eyewitnesses and were likewise clearly identified as the assailants.

Prosecution witness Marcelina Pat positively identified
appellants Joel Mancao, Fausto Reponte, Pedro Opsimar and Juancho Decatoria as
being at the scene of the crime and participated in attacking, wounding and
eventually killing her son Artemio with the use of bolos, “chaco”,
scythe and bow and arrow along with appellants Fructuoso Mancao and Benedicto
Mancao.^[10]
Her testimony was corroborated by Melchor Isong.^[11]

The alibi of appellants Joel Mancao, Fausto Reponte, Pedro
Opsimar and Juancho Decatoria that they were at the seashore in Alangilan near
Salud Diorpe’s house at 6:30 in the afternoon^[12]
did not discount entirely the possibility that after that time all the
appellants went to the scene of the crime.

The denial and alibi of said defendants that they were not
present is negative in character and cannot overcome the positive testimonies
of witnesses who actually saw them at the scene of the crime. Mere denials constitute self-serving
negative evidence, which cannot be accorded greater weight than the declarations
of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.^[13]

Fructuoso Mancao alleges that the reason for the incident was
that because Artemio Pat destroyed the fence that he put up, which obstructed
the footpath which Artemio and his group were using, thereby bringing about an
altercation between them.^[14]
Thereupon, Artemio hacked Fructuoso with a bolo hitting him on the
forehead. So, in retaliation, Fructuoso
pulled out his scythe and struck Artemio hitting him on the left side of his
body. Thereafter, the two exchanged
blows with the use of their respective weapons. Marcelina on the other hand, hit Fructuoso with a piece of bamboo
to which he responded by hacking and wounding her on the forehead and left arm.

Benedicto Mancao’s story was most revealing. He testified that while he was going to his
sister’s house nearby, he saw his father, Fructuoso being hacked by
Artemio. Benedicto picked up stones to
help his father but was stabbed by Melchor Isong in the abdomen.^[15]
Benedicto further testified that he ran home but forgot to bring Artemio’s
bolo.

By the foregoing testimonies, Fructuoso wants to impress upon Us
that he alone and no one else inflicted the injuries sustained by both
Marcelina Pat and Artemio Pat in defense of his person.

We are not convinced.

It was the wedding day of the deceased Artemio Pat. His bride and mother were with him during
the time of the incident. It would be
highly unnatural and improbable for a man who has just been married, preparing
for that most awaited first night with his wife to engage himself into a
homicidal fight. If he were to, he
would not have brought his wife and mother with him. Hence, there could not have been any unlawful aggression coming
from the deceased.

The defense claims that Artemio Pat was armed with a bolo but
such bolo as never presented in court nor recovered at the scene of the crime.

Dr. Zoselun Zerrudo, the doctor who conducted a post mortem
examination on the deceased, testified that the seven wounds sustained by
Artemio were not inflicted by the same weapon and by only one person.^[16]
In fact, one of the wounds sustained by the deceased was a through and through
wound measuring 1/4 inch long at its entrance and 1/8 inch long at its exit
found at the base of his neck which could likely be caused by an arrow with a
metallic point.^[17]
Definitely, such wound cannot be caused by a scythe, the only weapon appellant
allegedly used, as testified to by him. And the evidence points to Fausto Reponte as the culprit who was armed
with a bow and arrow during the attack. This led the trial court to believe —

“that the defendants plotted the
ambush and killing of Artemio Pat and the near-killing of Marcelina Pat. For all of them belong to the same
family. Accused Fructuoso Mancao is the
father of defendants Benedicto Mancao and Joel Mancao and father-in-law of
accused Fausto Reponte, Pedro Opsimar and Juancho Decatoria. All of them lived very close to each other
in Fructuoso Mancao’s farm. It was easy
for them to band together, conferred with each other, and to present a united
front against a common foe as what happened to the herein victims.”^[18]

The senseless attack was provoked by a series of incidents
starting with a quarrel between Benedicto Mancao and Artemio Pat in a
basketball game and culminating in the actuations of the latter in destroying
the fence that blocked their usual footpath across the Mancao farm which was
planted with peanuts.

Treachery was clearly established by the evidence on record. The attack on Artemio’s group was so sudden
and unexpected. Under cover of
darkness, the appellants waylaid, ambushed and suddenly attacked Marcelina Pat
and Artemio Pat with deadly weapons. The method of assault and the weapons used was deliberately chosen by
the aggressors with the end in view of accomplishing the commission of the
crime without risk to themselves and free from the defense of the
deceased. Six able-bodied men who were
armed with deadly weapons acted in unison and overwhelmed the defenses put up
by the deceased in a futile and hopeless fight to save his life against an
overpowering force.

Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but may be
proven through a series of acts done by each of the accused in pursuance of the
common unlawful purpose.^[19]
In the instant case, all of the appellants acted in concert in attacking the
deceased and his companions. They
encircled Artemio Pat and with the use of their weapons inflicted upon him
multiple stab wounds.

It is hard to ignore the overwhelming evidence against the
appellants. We find the testimony of
prosecution’s witnesses more convincing, thereby giving their testimonies full
weight and credence.

At any rate, the rule is that appellate courts will not disturb
the factual findings of the trial court since the trial judge is in a better
position to ascertain who should be believed and whose testimony should he
rejected considering that he saw and heard the testimony of the witnesses in
the course of the trial.^[20]
It is only when the trial court overlooked matters of substance or value which
if considered might affect the results that its appraisal on the relative
credibility of witnesses should not be sustained,^[21]
which We do not find in the case at bar.

The trial court, however, incorrectly applied the Indeterminate
Sentence Law to accused-appellant Fructuoso Mancao in Criminal Case No. 3787.

Since the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is
appreciated in favor of the accused appellant, the penalty to be imposed upon
him must be one degree lower, which is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
minimum penalty shall at least be within the maximum period of prision mayor,
and the maximum penalty shall be anywhere within the maximum period of reclusion
temporal.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision
appealed from, the same is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the
penalty to be imposed on Fructuoso Mancao shall be ten (10) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor as the minimum penalty to seventeen (17) years,
four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as the maximum
penalty. The indemnity to be paid to
the heirs of the deceased is hereby increased to P50,000.00.^[22]
Appellant’s guilt has been proved with the degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. With
costs against appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 13.

^[2]
T.S.N., July 17, 1980, pp. 17-19.

^[3]
Id., p. 25.

^[4]
T.S.N., August 13, 1980, pp. 8-10; T.S.N., June 23, 1981, p. 6.

^[5]
T.S.N., July 17, 1980, p. 26.

^[6]
Id., at p. 21.

^[7]
T.S.N., December 9, 1982, p. 4.

^[8]
People vs. Loveria, G.R. NO. 79138, 187 SCRA 47, (1990).

^[9]
People vs. Nabor, G.R. Nos. 77822-23, 185 SCRA 615, (1990).

^[10]
T.S.N., July 17, 1980, pp. 14-26.

^[11]
T.S.N., June 23, 1981, pp. 4-7.

^[12]
T.S.N., May 26, 1983, p. 9.

^[13]
People vs. Alcantara, No. L-74737, 163 SCRA 783, (1988).

^[14]
T.S.N., September 7, 1982, p. 12.

^[15]
T.S.N., October 15, 1981, p. 8.

^[16]
T.S.N., March 23, 1981, p. 26.

^[17]
Id., at pp. 20-27.

^[18]
Appellee’s Brief, p. 17.

^[19]
People vs. Quiñones, G.R. No. 80042, 183 SCRA 747, (1990).

^[20]
People vs. Garufil, No. L-74485-86, 152 SCRA 468 (1987).

^[21]
Ibid.

^[22]
People vs. Sison, G.R. No. 86455, 189 SCRA 643, (1990).