PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ISAIAS GLINOGO ALIAS “BEBOT GURANG” AND RUEL RIVERA ALIAS “RUEL AUGUIS” ALIAS ACCUSED, RUEL RIVERA ALIAS “RUEL AUGUIS” ALIAS “…

The two accused were charged with two counts of Murder and with
Frustrated Murder in connection with the deaths of Alberto Camasora
and Armando Aguilar and the injuries sustained by Baltazar
Galve.  The two
murder charges riled with the Regional
Trial Court of General Santos
City were respectively
docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 3713 and 3714, while the charge of frustrated
murder was docketed as Criminal Case No. 3715. 
In a consolidated decision, the trial court, while dismissing the
allegation of conspiracy, ordered.

“WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, verdict is hereby
rendered:

‘1)           In Criminal Case No. 3713, for Murder, finding the accused
Ruel Rivera, alias ‘Ruel Baguis‘, ‘Ruel Buguis‘, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Murder, with the generic aggravating circumstance of night time and without any
mitigating circumstance hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua, to indemnify the offended party in the
amount of P15.000.00 and to pay the cost:

‘Accused Isaias
Glinogo, alias ‘Bebot Gurang‘ is hereby acquitted for insufficiency of evidence
in Crim. Case No. 3713:

2)           In Criminal Case No. 3714, for Murder, finding the accused
Isaias Glinogo, alias ‘Bebot Gurang‘ guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, with the generic aggravating
circumstance of night time, without any mitigating circumstance, hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P15.000.00 And to pay the
cost.

‘For lack of proof of the
guilt of the accused Ruel Rivera, alias ‘Ruel Baguis‘, alias ‘Ruel Auguis‘ beyond reasonable
doubt, he is hereby acquitted in Crim. Case No. 3714:

‘3)           In Criminal Case No. 3715 for Frustrated Murder for
insufficiency of evidence and for a reasonable doubt both accused Isaias Glinogo, alias ‘Bebot Gurang’ and Ruel Rivera alias ‘Ruel Baguis‘, alias ‘Ruel Auguis’, are hereby acquitted, with costs de oficio.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 15, Rollo)

From the above rulings, the accused
appellant Ruel Rivera, appealed to this Court arguing
that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court a quo summarized the evidence of the parties as
follows:

For the prosecution:

“1)     Baltazar Galve, a resident of Lambangal
General Santos City, declared that he knew personally  Alberto Camasora
and Armando Aguilar for they were all neighbors at Lambangal,
General Santos City; that on January 12, 1984, at around 8:30 p.m. they went to
see a movie after which they went home passing the bridge at Silway and while thereat he was stabbed by Loloy Padilla while his companion.  Armando Aguilar was stabbed by Isaias Glinogo alias ‘Bebot Gurang’ and Alberto Camasora was stabbed by Loloy
Padilla and Ruel Rivera alias ‘Ruel
Baguis“, Armando Aguilar died right at the
bridge while Alberto Camasora died at the Doctor’s
Hospital five days thereafter: that he was also treated in the Doctor’s
Hospital by Dr. Venancio Yap (Exhibit ‘A’), and he
has executed a swore statement in connection with the case (Exhibit ‘B’. (TSN. pp. 3-13, March 13, 1985).

“2)     Jose Alvarado, a retired City Health
Officer, General Santos City, testified that he remembers having conducted an
autopsy on the cadaver of Armando Aguilar on January 13, 1984 (Exhibit ‘C ‘);
that the stab wound he found on the body of Armando Aguilar serious which
caused the death of the victim that the stab wound penetrated the vital organ
of the body which caused hemorrhage inside the chest, cavity and that stab
wound was the only injury found in the body of the victim. (TSN. pp. 21,26, March 21, 1985).

“3)     Lolita Aguilar, mother of the victim Armando Aguilar, declared
that she was the one who got the death certificate of her son from the City
Health Officer; that as a result of the death of her son she incurred medical
expenses in the amount of P1,700.00 (Exhibit ‘E’) and P1,000.00 for the
tomb.  (TSN, pp.
29-32, April 11, 1985). (p. 10, Rollo)

On the other hand, the witnesses for the defense essentially
testified:

“1)     Wendelyn
Palmetos, an ICHDF, declared that while he, Isaias Glinogo and Ruel Rivera were guarding as members of the ICHDF, in the
house of Benhur Bartolo,
there was a stabbing incident at the Silway Bridge,
but he does not know the persons who stabbed nor the persons stabbed; that he came
to know only of the stabbing when two wounded persons went to the house of Benhur Bartolo asking for help;
that they helped them by bringing the wounded persons to the Doctor’s Hospital,
one of whom was Mr. Galve.  He and Ruel Rivera
helped them ride in the tricycle to the Doctor’s Hospital; that Silway Bridge
is about One Hundred (100) meters away from the house of Benhur
Bartolo. (TSN, pp. 37-41, June 11, 1985).

“2)     Accused Ruel Rivera testifying in his behalf declared that at
around 6:00 p.m., January 12, 1984, he was at their house from the basketball
court, after which he went to the house of Benhor Bartolo; that while thereat he came to know of the stabbing
incident at the Silway bridge, thru one of the
wounded persons Mr. Galve who went to the house of Benhur Bartolo to ask for help
and they helped them ride in the tricycle to the Doctor ‘s Hospital.  (TSN, pp. 46-48, June 11, 1985).

“3)     Accused Isaias Glinogo, testified that in
the evening of January 12, 1984, he was assigned as guard in the house of Benhur Bartolo because he was a
member of the ICHDF at the time: that while guarding thereat he came to know of
a stabbing incident at the Silway bridge when Baltaar Galve who was wounded
went to the house of Benhur Bartolo
to ask for help, and he (Galve) was brought to the
Doctor’s Hospital; that be does not know who were involved in the stabbing
incident.  (TSN, pp.54-56,
June 11, 1985).

“4)     Celso Sta. Ana, Physician Surgeon, General Santos City,
declared that on January 12, 1984, he remembered having treated Alberto Camasora of a stab wound at the epigastric
area which stab wound penetrated the stomach, the left kidney and down to the
aluminous, caused by a sharp bladed Instrument; that he was operated the next
day, but inspite of medical treatment he died on
January 17, 1985, in the hospital.  (TSN, pp.3-6, April 10, 1985).  (pp. 10-11, Rollo)

The accused-appellant invokes alibi in his defense.  It is his claim that at the time the crimes
were committed, he, together with some friends, was guarding the house of one Benhur Bartolome, which house
happens to be only 100 meters from the Silway Bridge,
the place where the victims were stabbed. 
To establish alibi as a defense, it must be shown that it was impossible
for the accused to have been at the place where the crime was committed (People
v. Perente, Jr. 143 SCRA 56; People v. Abigan, 144 SCRA 130; People v. Coronado, 145 SCRA 250).  Likewise, the defense of alibi may not be
successfully invoked where the identity of the assailant has been established
by the witnesses (People v. Monteverde, 142 SCRA
668; People v. Palma,
144 SCRA 364).  Against the preceding
criteria, the accused’s alibi cannot be possibly
given weight.  It must be noted that the
house of Benhur Bartotome,
which the accused was allegedly guarding with his companions at the time the
crimes were committed, is only 100 meters from the Silway Bridge.  As such, could have been very easy for the
accused to go the bridge in wait, pounce upon the victim, and return to the
said house of Bartolome immediately after.  Furthermore, the identities of the accused,
specifically the accused-appellant Ruel Rivera, were
established beyond question by prosecution witness Baltazar
Galve.  As the
trial court found:

“To prove their case, the prosecution presented the only
and lone eyewitness to the commission of the crimes charged in the information,
in the person of Baltazar Galve,
also the offended party in Crim. Case No. 3715, for
Frustrated Murder.  This witness
categorically declared that he knew personally the accused Ruel
Rivera, alias ‘Ruel Auguis‘
alias ‘Ruel Baguis‘,
because he had always been in company with him before the incident and he
recognized him as the one who stabbed the victim Alberto Camasora
(Crim. Case No. 3713, for Murder)… While the
stabbing incident happened at around 8:30
in the evening, the said witness recognized the said accused as the
perpetrators of the crimes because of the electric light bulb at the Silway Bridge
which facilitated the identity of the accused. 
We consider the evidence amply sufficient to establish the identity of
the accused as the ones who committed the crimes in question.  (Decision, pp. 11-12, Rollo)

Contrary, therefore, to the
accused-appellant’s claim, his identity was clearly established as one of the
victims, attacker.

Likewise, there is created in Our mind a moral certainty as
accused appellant Ruel Rivera ‘s
criminal liability with suspect to Alberto Gamasora’s
death.  Again Baltazar
Galve categorically testified.

Q    What
about this Alberto Camasora, what happened to him?

A     While
I was stabbed.  Berto
went near to me and he was also stabbed.

Q    And
do you know who stabbed Alberto Camasora?

A     Yes, sir.  It was Loloy
Padilla.

Q    What
about this Ruel Auguis, what did he do, if
you have seen him?

A     He
stabbed Berto Camasora
also.

Q    When
this Ruel Rivera alias Ruel Auguis, stabbed
Alberto Camasora, was the later
hit?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    Where
was Alberto Camasora hit?

A     On
his stomach, sir (p. 11, Plaintiff?Appellee’s Brief)

This testimony of Mr. Galve
was substantially corroborated by Dr. Celso Sta. Ana,
a witness for the defense, when he testified that Alberto Camasora
sustained a stab wound at the epigastric area.  While Mr. Galve
failed to clearly establish the participation of a certain Loloy
Padilla in the stabbing of Alberto Camasora,
accused-appellant Ruel Rivera’s role was distinctly
narrated.  This only shows that it is the
accused-appellant who must bear the consequences set by law for the killing of
Alberto Camasora.

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED
with the sole MODIFICATION that the offended parties in Crim.
Case No. 3713 for Murder, be indemnified with the amount of P30,000.00 instead
of P15,000.00, for the death of Alberto Camasora as
correctly recommended by the Solicitor General.

SO ORDERED.

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