THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CENON BRIOSO, SEVERINO BRIOSO, AND MONICO VITAMOG, ACCUSSED-APPELLANTS.

In four (4) separate Informations (in Crim. Cases Nos. 876-K, 891-K, 892-K and 893-K) filed
before Branch XXIV of the Regional Trial Court of Cabugao,
Ilocos Sur, the
accused-appellants CENON Brioso, SEVERINO Brioso and MONICO Vitamog were
charged with Murder for the clubbing to death of the spouses Cresencio Vitamog and Erlinda Vitamog, and with
Frustrated Murder for the serious head injuries sustained by the couple’s two
(2) children, KENNEDY Vitamog and Presley Vitamog, committed at around midnight of 15 March 1983 in
the Municipality of San Juan, Province of Ilocos Sur.

All three accused entered pleas of Not Guilty to the four
charges.  After a joint trial, the Trial
Court rendered verdicts of guilty and decreed:

“WHEREFORE, finding the accused Cenon
Brioso, Severino Brioso and Monico Vitamog, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
charged in the four (4) informations filed in these
cases, judgment is hereby rendered against them, as follows:

“(1)    In Criminal Case No.
876-K, each is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, with all the accessories of the law; to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Crescencio
Vitamog in the amount of P30,000.00; and to pay
one-third of the costs;

“(2)    In Criminal Case No.
893-K, each is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, with all the accessories of the law; to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Erlinda
Vitamog in the amount of P30,000.00; and to pay
one-third of the costs;

“(3)    In Criminal Case No.
891-K, each is hereby sentenced to a prison term ranging from SIX (6) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor as
minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion Temporal,
as maximum, with all the accessories of
the law; to indemnify, jointly and severally, the victim Presley Vitamog in the amount of P12,000.00; and to pay one-third
of the costs;

“4)     In Criminal Case No.
892-K, each is hereby sentenced to a prison term ranging from SIX (6) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor, as
minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion Temporal,
as maximum, with all the accessories of the law; to indemnify, jointly and
severally, the victim Kennedy Vitamog in the amount of P12,000.00; and to
pay one-third of the costs.^[1]

Thus, this appeal.

The prosecution has narrated the tragedy as follows:

“At the time of the incident, which took place in the evening
of March 15, 1983, the spouses Cresencio Vitamog and Erlinda Vitamog, together with their two children, Kennedy and
Presley, were temporarily staying in a make-shift shed as their old house was
just demolished to give way for the construction
of a new one in Barangay Resurreccion,
San Juan, Ilocos Sur (pp.
5-6, tsn, Sept. 1, 1983; pp. 6-7, tsn,
April 16, 1984; p. 5, tsn, Sept. 3,
1984).  That evening, while the couple
and their two children were fast
asleep, three persons entered their make-shift shed and started to beat them
with bamboo stumps.  The elder of the two
children, Kennedy Vitamog, who was awakened by the
scream of his mother, started to run as he saw his parents and brother being
clubbed by the intruders, whom he positively identified as the accused-appellants Cenon
Brioso, Severino Brioso and Monico Vitamog.  But Kennedy
was chased and overtaken by Cenon Brioso
who also clubbed him until he lost consciousness (pp. 4-13, 21-25, tsn, Sept. 1, 1983; pp. 6-7, tsn, Sept.
19, 1983).

“It was only early the following morning that the lifeless
bodies of the spouses were found smeared with blood inside their makeshift shed
by the carpenters who came to construct their house.  Forthwith, two of the carpenters rode on their bicycles to report the
incident to the police authorities.  On the way, they met Pat. Necie
Ubaldo, who advised them to inform Pat. Benedicto Ventiro who was also
residing in Barangay Resurreccion.  From there, the two proceeded to the house of
Sub-station Commander Alexander Ayuyang of San Juan, Ilocos Sur (pp. 4-8, tsn, July 2, 1984).

“Immediately upon receiving the report, Pat. Ventiro
passed for Pat. Ubaldo and proceeded to
the crime scene.  Meanwhile, Commander Ayuyang, along with other policemen, likewise went to the scene
of the crime.  When they arrived thereat, they saw the lifeless
bodies of the spouses lying prostate on the
ground.  They also saw Presley Vitamog lying unconscious between his parents covered by a
blanket; while the elder brother, Kennedy Vitamog laid
unconscious on top of a pile of
sawn lumber.  A broken chair was also found at the crime scene, indicating
that a struggle took place.  Two bamboo stumps
stained with blood (Exhibits
“H-2” and “H-3”)
were recovered, one beside the body of Erlinda Vitamog and the other near the head of Cresencio Vitamog (pp. 5-10,
16-18, tsn, Sept. 27, 1983; pp. 3-5, tsn, Feb. 20, 1984).

“As the two children were still breathing, they were rushed to
the Pira Clinic for
treatment.  Thereafter, a
photographer was summoned by the
police to take pictures where the incident took place (Exhibits “C”,
“D”, “E”, and “F”) before taking the dead bodies
of the spouses to the health center for autopsy (pp. 10-15, tsn,
Sept. 27, 1983; pp. 5-6, 9, tsn, Feb. 20, 1984).

“The autopsy of the deceased spouses was conducted by Dr.
Loreto Damian, the Municipal Health Officer of San Juan and Magsingal,
Ilocos Sur, who reduced in
writing his findings on the cadavers of Cresencio Vitamog and Erlinda Vitamog (Exhibits “A” and “B”,
respectively).  In both findings, Dr.
Damian enumerated and described the seven (7) wounds sustained by each one of
them, and stated therein the causes of death of Cresencio
Vitamog as lacerated wound of the brain and that of Erlinda Vitamog as laceration of
the brain.  That of the seven (7) wounds
sustained by each of the spouses, Dr. Damian considered as fatal wounds Nos. 5
and 6, in the case of Cresencio Vitamog,
and wounds Nos. 2 and 3, in the case of Erlinda Vitamog.  It
was the opinion of the doctor that all the wounds inflicted on both
spouses were caused by a blunt instrument, possibly a bamboo; save for wound
No. 5 sustained by Erlinda Vitamog, which was
an incised wound, 1 inch long and 3/4 inch deep, on the right palm over
the distal thirds of the 2nd and 3rd metacarpal bones.  This incised wound, according to the doctor, could have been caused
by a sharp-edge instrument like the sharp
edge of a bamboo.  The doctor also observed
that at the time he conducted the examination at about 10:00 o’clock in the
morning of March 16, 1983, both cadavers were already in a state of rigor mortis, indicating that the
subjects could have died already about ten (10) hours prior to the time of
examination (pp. 3-20, tsn, Aug. 12, 1983).

“During the course of the autopsy, strands of hair were found
in the hand-grip of Erlinda Vitamog,
which were ordered by Sub-station Commander Ayuyang
to be preserved for comparison with samples of hair to be taken from the
suspects.  Pursuant thereto, Police
Investigator Dominador Sandi placed the same inside
an envelope and labeled it accordingly (Exh.
“M-15”).  Then all known police
characters and those who in one way or another were known to have a grudge
against either of the deceased spouses during their lifetime, were summoned to
the police headquarters for a sample of their hair.  Among
them were those of the three accused-appellants for having allegedly
previous grudges and/or misunderstanding with the deceased spouses.  Said hair samples and those taken from the hand-grip of the deceased Erlinda
Vitamog, which were separately placed inside twelve
(12) duly sealed and labeled envelopes (Exhibits “M-13”,
“M-14”, “M-15”, “M-16”, “M-17”,
“M-18”, “M-19”, “M-20”, “M-21”,
“M-22”, “M-23”, and “M-24”), were transmitted (Exhibit “M-25”) to the NBI main office
in Manila for comparison (pp. 30-33, tsn, Oct. 25,
1983; pp. 8-15, tsn, Feb. 3, 1984; pp. 4, 6, 9, tsn, Feb. 20, 1984).

“The NBI senior analyst, Carolyn U. Custodio,
who examined said hair specimens, made a series of twelve (12) biology reports
of hair findings (Exhibits “M-1”, “M-2”, “M-3″, M-4”, “M-5”,
“M-6”, “M-7”, “M-8”, “M-9”, “M-10”, “M-11”, and “M-12”), indicating that only
the hair samples taken from the accused-appellant Severino
Brioso (Exh.
“M-1”) and those of his brother Antonio Brioso
(Exh. “M-2”) resembled the hair strands
taken from the hand-grip of the deceased Erlinda Vitamog.  According
to Custodio, it is possible that hair of persons closely related to each other like brothers
would resemble one another by reason of the law on heredity (pp. 33-38, tsn, Oct. 25, 1983; pp. 8-9, 16-33, tsn,
Feb. 3, 1984).

“Upon the other hand, the deceased spouses’ two children were
treated by Dr. Romeo Pira, who issued separate
medical certificates (Exhs. “I” and “J”) of
his findings on the examination he conducted on Kennedy Vitamog
and Presley Vitamog, respectively.  In both medical
certificates, it was stated that the patients suffered cerebral concussion,
caused by the injuries inflicted on their heads.  Said injuries, according to the doctor, could
have been caused by a blunt instrument like a bamboo.  The doctor stated that both patients were
semi-conscious when admitted to his clinic at about 8:00 o’clock in the morning of March
16, 1983, and
remained so for two days.  So that, based on the nature and extent of
the injuries sustained by both patients, they could have died as a consequence
thereof without the proper and immediate medical attendance (pp. 3-10, tsn, Sept. 2, 1983).

“After their confinement, the two brothers were brought to the
residence of the Mayor of San Juan, Ilocos Sur, who took them into custody for fear
that they would be liquidated by their assailants.  Then, as soon as Kennedy Vitamog regained full
possession of his faculties, he was summoned to the police headquarters for
questioning regarding the incident. 
Thus, in his written statement taken by police investigator Dominador Sandi on May 16, 1983 (Exh.
“G”), Kennedy mentioned the accused-appellants as the ones who
entered their make-shift shed in the evening of March 15, 1983 and started beating them.  And when accused-appellants were brought to
the police headquarters for confrontation, Kennedy positively identified them
to be the very persons he mentioned as their assailants (pp. 13-22, Oct.
25, 1983; pp. 6-9, tsn, Nov. 18, 1983; pp. 11-12, 17-18, tsn,
Dec. 12, 1983).”^[2]

The accused, on the other hand, interposed defenses of denial and
alibi and presented their own version of the occurrence in the following
manner:

“On March 13, 1983,
Cresencio Vitamog and Erlinda Vitamog almost died
because Cornelia Vitamog, alias ‘Icco‘
went to attack them.  There was a
misunderstanding between them about the carabao of Cresencio Vitamog covered by
Certificate of Large Cattle (Exh. 3).  Cresencio Vitamog and Cornelio Vitamog are brothers. 
On March 14, 1983, Cresencio Vitamag told Leonora Gascon to
come and supervise the construction of their house because he has an inkling
that his brother Cornelio Vitamog has the intention
to harm them.  In the morning of March
15, 1983, Leonora Gascon received an information that Cresencio
Vitamog and Erlinda Vitamog died.  When
asked by Onofre Vivangco
who killed them, Leonora Gascon answered that nobody
would kill them except their adversary and she was referring to Cornelio Vitamog alias ‘Icco’.  The latter started residing in Manila the day following the funeral of Cresencio Vitamog and Erlinda Vitamog.  (Testimony of Leonora Gascon,
TSN, April 16, 1984, p. 4-9).

“Monico Vitamog
helped in making the hammock for loading the bodies of Cresencio
Vitamog and Erlinda Vitamog.  He also
attended the wake of these two victims. 
He likewise helped Cenon Brioso
in making the tomb for burial of said victims (Testimony of Pedro Peneyra, TSN, July 6, 1984, p. 5 and 13).

“On the night of March
15, 1983, Monico Vitamog
and his wife Carmen Vitamog went to the house of Silvestra Vitamog at Barangay Resurrection, San Juan,
Ilocos Sur and weaved buri hats and they stayed there up to 10:00 o’clock in the evening.  Monico Vitamog and his wife then went to sleep in their house up
to 4:00 o’clock the following
morning.  Monico
Vitamog prepared breakfast and at 6:00 o’clock in the morning, March 16, 1983, he left home to construct the house of Cresencio Vitamog and Erlinda Vitamog (Testimony of
Carmen Vitamog, TSN, July 6, 1984, p. 16-21).

“At 12:00 o’clock midnight, March 15, 1983, while Cenon Brioso was sleeping in their flue-curing barn with his wife
Maria Brioso tending to said flue-curing barn, the
latter heard the scream of Erlinda Vitamog.  Thinking
that there was fire in the flue-curing barn, Maria Brioso
awakened Cenon Brioso.  They both went to sleep at past 1:00 o’clock and woke up at 4:00 o’clock, the following morning.  They learned later on that spouses Cresencio Vitamog and Erlinda Vitamog and their
children were clubbed.  On the night of March 15, 1983, also, Severino Brioso fetched his
sister Emilia Brioso at Brgy. Resurrection, San Juan
locos Sur and they proceeded to Brgy.
Lapting, San Juan,
Ilocos Sur where the wife
of Severino was sick (Testimony of Maria Brioso, TSN, Aug. 17, 1984, p. 4-6).

“xxx               xxx                   xxx

“Severino Brioso
arrived with his sister Amelia Brioso at Brgy. Lapting, San
Juan, Ilocos Sur at 7:25 P.M.
March 15, 1983.  After taking his supper, he went to
sleep.  He woke up at 5:00 A.M., the following morning.  While the spouses Cresencio
Vitamog and Erlinda Vitamog were lying in state, Severino
Brioso went to attend the wake for four (4)
times.  Severino
Brioso does not know anything about the death of
spouses Cresencio Vitamog
and Erlinda Vitamog.  When asked by the police to give sample of
his hair, Severino Brioso
voluntary pulled his hair because he does not know of any fault.  There is no truth to the testimony of Kennedy
Vitamog that he saw Severino
Brioso entered the makeshift shed where they were
sleeping on the night of March 15,
1983 and that is a complete falsehood.  Kennedy Vitamog
might have been coached by Pfc. Benedicto Vintero.  Severino Brioso did not have any
misunderstanding with deceased spouses Cresencio Vitamog and Erlinda Vitamog (Testimony of Severino Brioso, TSN, Oct. 19, 1984, p. 6-13).^[3]

In this appeal, the accused contend that the Trial Court
erred:  (1) “in finding that the
testimony of the lone prosecution eye-witness, Kennedy Vitamog
is credible and sufficient to support a judgment
of conviction”; (2) “in not giving faith and credence to the
testimonies of the accused as corroborated by credible witnesses”; (3)
“in considering the defense of the accused as a mere alibi which according
to the same court should not be
given credence”; and (4) “in convicting the accused despite the
failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt”.

In the light of the evidence, we find the foregoing contentions,
centering mainly on the issue of credibility of conflicting versions of the
prosecution and the defense, unavailing.

In no uncertain terms, 9-year-old eyewitness, KENNEDY Vitamog,
identified the three accused as the very persons who entered their make-shift
shed in the evening of 15 March 1983,
clubbed his parents and then his younger brother and himself.  Thus:

“Fiscal Campos:

xxx                xxx                   xxx

“Q   By  the way, on March 15, 1983, where was your house then located?

“A    Near a flue-curing
barn at Resurreccion San Juan, Ilocos
Sur, Sir.

“Q   Please tell the
court what happened in your house at the time.

“A    Three men entered
our make-shift shed, Sir.

“Q   What time of the day
when three men entered that make-shift shed?

“A    At nighttime, Sir.

“Q   And how about
you?  Where were you at the time when
three men entered that make-shift shed?

“A    I was lying down
under the make-shift shed, Sir.

“Q   How about your father and
your mother?  What were they doing at the
time when three men entered this make-shift shed?

“A    They were lying
down, Sir.

“Q   Do you have a sister?

“A    None, Sir.

“Q   How about a younger
brother?

“A    There is, Sir.

“Q   What is the name of your younger brother?

“A    Presley Vitamog, Sir.

“Q   Where was your younger
brother, Presley, at the time when these three men entered that make-shift
shed?

“A    He was lying down,
Sir.

xxx                xxx                   xxx

“Q   Now, when these
three men that you said entered that make-shift shed on the night of March 15, 1983, were you able to
recognize them?

“A    Yes, Sir.

“Q   Now, please tell the
court the respective names of these three men who entered that make-shift shed.

“A    Cenon,
Moning and Vering, Sir.

“Q   Now, are these three
men that you named namely:  Cenon, Vering and Moning are in the courtroom now?

“A    Yes, Sir.

“Q   Please point at them.

“A    They are there,
Sir.

“Q   Now, please go down
from the witness stand and go to the place where these three persons are and
point to them one by one.

“COURT

Witness is allowed to go down from the witness stand.

“WITNESS

“A    This is Cenon, Sir (witness pointing to one who is in court, and
when asked, he gave his name as Cenon Brioso).

“FISCAL CAMPOS:

How about the other person named Moning?  Please point at him.

“WITNESS

“A    This one, Sir
(witness pointing to a person who is in court and when his name was asked he
answered Monico Vitamog).

“Q   How about the person
you named Vering? 
Please point to him.

“A    This one, Sir
(witness pointing to one and when asked he gave his name as Severino
Brioso).

“Q   From where is Cenon?

“A    He is from Barangay Resurreccion, San
Juan, Ilocos Sur, Sir.

“Q   How about Vering?  From where
is he?

“A    Barangay
Resurreccion, San Juan,
Ilocos Sur, Sir.

“Q   How long have you
known these three persons?

“A    For quite a long
time already, Sir.

xxx            xxx                   xxx

“Q   How often do you see
these three men in your town?

“A    Very frequent, Sir.

xxx            xxx                   xxx

“Q   And what did these three
men do when they entered that make-shift shed?

“A    They clubbed us
several times, Sir.

(pp.
4-9, tsn, Sept.
1, 1983).”^[4]

KENNEDY could also vividly recall who, among the accused, clubbed
them successively, as he declared:

“Q   Could you tell the
court who among the accused clubbed your mother if you still can remember?

“A    Moning,
Sir.

“Q   How about your father,
who clubbed him?

“A    Cenon,
Sir.

“Q   And how about you? Who clubbed you also?

“A    Cenon,
Sir.

“Q   And how about your
younger brother?  Who clubbed him?

“A    Vering,
Sir. (pp. 9-10 ibid.).”^[5]

The accused maintain, however, that KENNEDY was incompetent to
testify on the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident as he was
already sleeping when the whole family was clubbed.  That is farthest from the facts.  As he testified, he was awakened by his mother’s screams and saw his
parents and brother being clubbed by the accused with bamboo stumps, which he
identified in open Court.^[6]
He could see clearly because a lighted kerosene lamp was hanging only about 2-1/2
meters away from where they were attacked.^[7]
Witnessing the brutal assault, he ran out only to be chased by accused CENON Brioso, who also clubbed him and, together with SEVERINO,
carried him to the top of the pile of sawn lumber at a distance of about 3-1/2
meters from where his parents were attacked. 
There he lay until the next morning where he was found “still
breathing”.

There should be no question about KENNEDY’s
competence and credibility as a witness. 
At the inception of his testimony, he stated in all innocent candor:

“Fiscal Campos

“Q   Now, Kennedy, you
were required a while ago to raise your right hand and swear to the truth of
all the things you would say before this court. 
Do you know the
significance of an oath?

“A    Yes, Sir.

“Q   What is the meaning then
of your taking an oath?

“A    That I would tell
the truth, Sir.

“Q   And if you would not tell
the truth what will be the consequence of your not telling the truth?

“A    I would be punished
if I am not telling the truth, Sir.  I
would go to hell, Sir.

“Q   Is it bad to tell a lie?

“A    Yes, Sir.  It is bad to tell a lie.

“Q   Why do you say that
it is bad to tell a lie?

“A    One who is telling
a lie goes to hell, Sir.  (p. 3,
ibid.).”^[8]

The Trial Court made certain of that competence and credibility before discharging him as a
witness after the latter’s rebuttal testimony in a series of questions as
follows:

“COURT

Kennedy, please listen very carefully.

“Q   The Court would like
to inform you that your testimony is very vital in this case, do you understand
that?

“A    Yes, your Honor.

“Q   Under your oath, do
you affirm and confirm your previous testimony to the effect that three (3)
accused in this case, Cenon Brioso,
Severino Brioso, and Monico Vitamog are the
perpetrators of the two (2) murders and
two (2) frustrated murders involving your parents, you and your brother Presley
Vitamog, do you affirm and confirm your previous
testimony?

“A    Yes, your Honor.

“Q   Why do you say that
they were the perpetrators of the
crime?

“A    I saw them, your
Honor.  (pp. 14-15, tsn,
Jan. 24, 1985)”^[9]

The fact that KENNEDY’s statement (Exhibit “G”) was taken only
on 16 May 1983,
or approximately two (2) months after the incident, does not militate against
his credibility.  It will be recalled
that he suffered cerebral concussion caused by injury on his head and had to be
hospitalized from March 16 to 28 (Exhibit “I”).  Upon his discharge, the attending physician
still observed traces of “psychological trauma” in the boy, which is
understandable considering the frightening and harrowing experience that he had
gone through.  As soon as he regained
full possession of his faculties, however, he revealed to the investigator the
names of the accused and, out of five suspects, positively identified the three
accused in a confrontation with them at police headquarters.^[10] Even a cursory reading of 48 pages of the
transcript of his testimony on direct and cross-examination and on rebuttal,
demonstrate the clarity of his recall and the positiveness
of his identification of the accused. 
The traumatic experience was behind him. 
Thus it was that in evaluating his reliability and trustworthiness, the
Trial Court concluded:

After carefully evaluating the testimony of the lone prosecution
eyewitness, Kennedy Vitamog, the Court is of the
opinion, and so holds, that it deserves full faith and credit.  Despite the grueling
cross-examination, he stuck to his version pointing to the three (3) accused as
the persons who entered the make-shift shed where the family was temporarily
staying on the night of March 15, 1983.  He
made the identification with certitude and without hesitancy.  His demeanor on the witness stand, both on
direct and cross-examinations, inspires confidence.’ (p. 52, Decision)”^[11]

The accused’s insinuation in their
testimonies that KENNEDY’s testimony was merely the
product of coaching either by the police investigator Benedicto
Vintero, or Mayor Quilala
of San Juan, Ilocos
Sur, does not deserve credence.  In the first place, KENNEDY’s
testimony in open Court on direct and cross-examination, and on rebuttal
sufficiently dispels the theory of coaching. 
Secondly, no plausible reason has been given as to why said persons
would coach the witness to testify against them.  The only motive attributed to Mayor Quilala is that MONICO had voted for his opponent in the
local elections of January 30, 1980.^[12]
As the Mayor himself testified, however, he did not even know that MONICO was
not his follower.^[13]
In fact, SEVERINO also declared that he did not believe that Mayor Quilala would coach KENNEDY.^[14]

As to the investigator Benedicto Vintero, no motive has been attributed to him either for
coaching KENNEDY other than having always seen him in the company of the boy,
particularly on 19 and 20 March 1983.^[15]
Not only has Ventiro denied the accusation but it is
also belied by KENNEDY’S medical certificate (Exhibit “I”) showing
that he was still confined at the clinic from 16 to 28 March 1983.

There is also physical evidence supporting KENNEDY’s
declaration that SEVERINO was among the three persons who perpetrated the
crime.  The hair strands found gripped in
Erlinda Vitamog’s hand
during the autopsy is a strong indication that there was a struggle between her
and at least one of her assailants as further shown by a broken chair found at
the crime scene.  This prompted the
investigators to secure hair samples from twelve possible suspects, among them
the three accused.  A biological
comparison of the hair specimens by an NBI Senior Analyst showed that only
those taken from accused SEVERINO (Exhibit “M-1”) and his brother
Antonio (Exhibit “M-2”) resembled the hair strands found gripped by
the victim Erlinda. 
All the other samples did not. 
And although Antonio is not an accused, he was a suspect and a specimen
of his hair was also received from him. 
As the NBI Analyst testified in respect of the hair samples from
SEVERINO:

“Q   Briefly speaking, what are the
characteristics of the samples of hair of Severino
Brioso represented in your Biology Report No.
B-83-501 that resemble the specimens of hair represented in your Biology Report
No. B-83-498?  (referring to the hair
samples taken from the deceased Erlinda Vitamog (Exh. “M-5”)

“A    They almost
resemble in all aspects, except for the absence of roots in the hair
samples taken from the hand grip of the victim, sir.”^[16]
(Emphasis
ours)

The close resemblance in “almost all aspects” of the
hair strands from Erlinda’s grip and those of
SEVERINO indicate, at the very least, that SEVERINO was present at the crime
scene contrary to his denials.  The fact
that the hair specimens of the other two accused CENON and MONICO did not show
such resemblance would only indicate that it was not with either of them that
the victim, Erlinda Vitamog,
had grappled with, but would not negate their direct participation in the
commission of the offense as testified to by KENNEDY.

The accused tried to inculpate Cornelio alias “Icco“, the brother of the victim Cresencio,
as the culprit on the basis of the testimony of one Leonora Gascon that Cresencio had told her to supervise the construction of
their house because he had an inkling that his brother Cornelio intended to
harm them.  This, however, is at best
hearsay.  And, contrary to Leonora Gascon’s testimony, the brother Cornelio attended the wake
and the funeral of the deceased couple. 
That he left the day after the funeral to reside in Caloocan City
is not an act synonymous with guilt since he is employed in a lumber farm
thereat and was afraid that he might suffer the same fate.

The denials made and the alibis advanced by the accused cannot
prevail over their positive identification by eyewitness KENNEDY.  As has been consistently held, alibi is the
weakest of all defenses specially where it has not been shown
that it was not physically impossible for the accused to have been present at
the place where the crime was committed at the time it was perpetrated.  CENON’s flue-curing
barn was so close to the place of the incident that his wife heard the victim Erlinda scream; while the houses of SEVERINO and MONICO
were just a few hundred meters from the crime scene.

The acts of commiseration shown by the accused in that MONICO
helped in making the hammock on which was loaded the bodies of the deceased;
that he and CENON helped in constructing the tombs for the victims; that
SEVERINO had attended the wake four (4) times, do not militate against a
finding of guilt.  They were a convenient
ploy to detract suspicion away from them.

In the final analysis, it
is settled doctrine that with respect to the issue of credibility of witnesses,
we have always accorded the
highest degree of respect to the findings of the trial Court considering that
it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses
themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the
trial, unless the Court has plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance and value, that if considered, might affect the result of the case.^[17]
The Trial Court cannot be faulted for any such misapprehension of factual
findings in the case at bar.

By reason of the positive
identification of the accused by a credible prosecution witness as the
perpetrators of the crimes charged, neither can KENNEDY’s
testimony be discredited by them by invoking lack of sufficient motive on their
part to commit the offenses attributed to them.  For, it is basic that motive assumes
importance only when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit,^[18]
which doubt is inexistent herein.

There is another
significant aspect in this case.  Defense
witness Leonor Gascon
disclosed on cross-examination the offer of the accused through the Barangay Captain of Banuar, to
settle for P2,000.00 each.  She declared:

“Q   You would want the
Honorable Court to understand that not any one of the relatives of the accused
came to you and requested you to come and testify?

“A    The Bgy. Captain of Banuar, Sir.

“Q   By the way, where is Brgy. Banuar in relation to Bgy. Resurreccion?

“A    Bgy.
Banuar is north of Bgy. Resurreccion, Sir.

“Q   What is the name of the barangay captain of Bgy. Banuar?

“A    I have forgotten
the first name but his family name is Corpus, Sir.

“Q   You would say this barangay
captain of Banuar is a relative of one of the accused
in this case?

“A    Yes, Sir.

“Q   Will you kindly mention the name of the accused who is in
any way related to the barangay captain of Bgy. Banuar?

“A    Severino Brioso, he being the uncle of his wife, Sir.

“Q   Now, did the Barangay Captain of Banuar, San Juan,
Ilocos Sur tell you at the
time he came to your house that you would testify in favor of the accused, Cenon Brioso in this case?

“A    Not with respect to
being a witness, Sir.

“Q   Kindly tell us what
the barangay captain told you.

“A    Since they knew
that I was the one who cared Erlinda he wanted to tell me that the suspects wanted to
have a settlement of the case, Sir.

“Q   Will you kindly
quote the exact words of the barangay captain of Banuar, San Juan,
Ilocos Sur when he came to
you to tell you that the suspects would be willing to have a settlement of the
case?

“A    ‘Manang, I came here to tell you that they would like us to
settle the case because I know that you were
the one who cared for Erlinda‘, he said, Sir.

“Q   Whom did the barangay
captain refer to when he said
that?

“A    Avelina
Vitamog, Sir.

“Q   That person who would pay would be the accused in this case?

“A    Yes, Sir.

“COURT

“Q   And what was your reaction to that
information furnished you by the barangay captain of Banuar?

“A    I asked him how much they would pay and they
said P2,000.00 each, Sir.  (pp. 11-13, tsn, April 16,
1984)”^[19]

The foregoing was confirmed by Avelina Vitamog, mother of the victim Cresencio
Vitamog, who rejected the offer because as she said
“I am not after the money”.^[20]
The defense did not present Barangay Captain Corpus
to deny the offer.  Neither did any one
of the accused deny the same.  As has
been held, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as
an implied admission of guilt.^[21]

With the positive identification of the accused as the
perpetrators of the crimes charged by the eyewitness KENNEDY, the physical
evidence corroborating KENNEDY’s testimony that
SEVERINO was among the three persons who committed the offenses in question,
and the offer of compromise by the accused themselves testified to by no less
than one of their witnesses, the guilt of the accused has been established to a legal and moral certainty.

Treachery undoubtedly attended the commission of the two offenses
because of the sudden attack while the victims were asleep.^[22]
Its attendance elevates the crime to Murder (on two counts) and Frustrated
Murder (also on two counts).  Frustrated,
because the accused had performed all the acts of execution, which would have
produced the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless did not produce it
by reason of the prompt medical attention given the two boys, a cause
independent of the will of the accused.^[23] Nighttime is inherent in treachery
and is not to be separately considered. 
Dwelling, however, should be appreciated as the crimes were committed
inside the victim’s make-shift shed without the offended parties having given
provocation therefor.

With no mitigating circumstance to offset this aggravating
circumstance, the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposable in the two (2) criminal
cases involving the deaths of Cresencio Vitamog and Erlinda Vitamog in view of the elimination of the death penalty in
the 1987 Constitution.  Two penalties of reclusion perpetua were, in fact,
imposed by the Trial Court but upon the mistaken assumption that dwelling could
not be appreciated since the victims were just residing in a make-shift shed.

In so far as the two crimes of Frustrated Murder are concerned,
and considering the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, which is not offset
by any mitigating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum
period or reclusion temporal in its medium period,
that is, fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen
(17) years and four (4) months.

WHEREFORE, finding that the guilt of all three (3) accused
has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the respective judgments in Criminal
Cases Nos. 876-K and 893-K for Murder, are hereby affirmed and each accused
shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in
each case.

In Criminal Cases Nos. 891-K and 892-K for Frustrated Murder, the
judgments are modified in that, in each of them, the accused shall suffer the
indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal,
as maximum.

The appealed judgments are affirmed in all other respects.

With proportionate costs
in each of the four criminal
cases.

SO ORDERED.

Yap, (Chairman), Paras,
and Padilla, JJ., concur.

Sarmiento, J., dissents in a separate opinion.

---

^[1]
Judgment, pp. 60-61, Rollo, pp. 132-133.

^[2]
Brief for the Appellee, pp. 4-11, Rollo,
p. 172.

^[3]
Appellants’ Brief, pp. 9-11, Rollo, p. 151.

^[4]
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 13-16.

^[5]
Ibid., pp. 16-17.

^[6]
T.s.n., Sept. 1, 1983, pp. 23-24.

^[7]
Ibid., p. 12.

^[8]
Ibid., pp. 17-18.

^[9]
Ibid., pp. 18-19.

^[10]
T.s.n., December 14, 1984, p. 603.

^[11]
Appellee’s Brief, p. 19.

^[12]
T.s.n., September
21, 1984, p. 12.

^[13]
T.s.n., January
18, 1985, p. 5.

^[14]
T.s.n., October
19, 1984, p. 13.

^[15]  Ibid.; October 29, 1984, pp. 11-13

^[16]
T.s.n., February
3, 1984, p. 280.

^[17]
People vs. Pelias
Jones, No. L-61165, June 24, 1985, 137 SCRA 166.

^[18]
People vs. Salas, L-29340, April
27, 1972, 44 SCRA
489.

^[19]
AppelIee’s Brief, pp. 20-22.

^[20]
T.s.n., January
11, 1985, p. 5.

^[21]
Section 24, Rule 130, Rules of Court.

^[22]
People vs. Manimtim, L-56261, January 27, 1983, 120 SCRA 324.

^[23]
Article 6, Revised Penal Code.

---

Normal
Clean
Clean

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}