PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VALERIO CARMINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Carmina

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Valerio Carmina, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder and double murder. A farmer and two of his sons were shot and one of them decapitated on their own farm, allegedly for refusing to pay a five hundred peso "tax" demanded in the name of the New People's Army. The case matters because it is a compact lesson in three things every bar candidate must command: the credibility of eyewitnesses, the proof of conspiracy, and the strict requirements for the defense of alibi.

Procedural History

Valerio Carmina and two others were charged in two separate informations, one for the murder of Genaro Gamboa and one for the double murder of Joelito Gamboa and Oscar Gamboa. Carmina entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. His co-accused remained at large. By agreement of the parties, the two cases were jointly tried before the trial court.

On October 23, 1987, the trial court rendered judgment, finding Carmina guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal in the commission of the three murders. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua in each case, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of each of the three victims in the sum of thirty thousand pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

Carmina appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the trial court's conviction of him despite the absence of evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

At about five o'clock in the morning of April 24, 1986, Genaro Gamboa and four of his sons, Joelito, Oscar, Edgar and Orestes, arrived at their farm in Sitio Baesan, Tarragona, Davao Oriental, coming from their residence in Sitio Maitum, Tubaon. They brought three laborers to clear the fields for planting corn. Edgar worked in his vegetable garden some distance away, while the rest cleared the fields side by side.

At around eleven o'clock in the morning, three men arrived: Valerio Carmina armed with a carbine rifle, Israel Carmina armed with a garand rifle, and Danilo Catundag armed with a bolo. They ordered Genaro, Joelito and Oscar to approach, shouting for them to come quickly. As they did, Valerio shouted that here came the persons who had no respect in paying the five hundred pesos demanded. Joelito was asked about an airgun, and he directed his eleven year old brother Orestes to fetch it from the farmhouse. The laborers were ordered to leave; a third laborer, Federico de Lima, hid behind a narra tree.

When Orestes returned with the airgun, Israel grabbed it and fired one shot. Orestes fled and hid behind a tree. Genaro, Joelito and Oscar were ordered to lie face down on the ground, and as soon as they obeyed they were shot by Valerio and Israel. Joelito died on the spot; Oscar staggered some distance before he succumbed. The volley missed Genaro, who ran toward a nearby creek, but Danilo Catundag chased him and hacked and beheaded him. Orestes and Edgar fled in terror and reported the incident to their mother, and later to the barangay officer and the police. Only Valerio was apprehended. He raised alibi, claiming he was in the house of Francisco Antao in another sitio with other members of the New People's Army at the time of the killing.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the murders through the testimonies of the prosecution's eyewitnesses.
• Whether or not conspiracy was established among the accused.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi may prevail over the positive identification of the accused at the scene of the crime.

Applicable Provisions

The Revised Penal Code defines murder in Article 248, which the informations charge and which fixes the penalty for the killings committed with treachery and evident premeditation:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation. 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

The informations allege treachery and evident premeditation, and the Court affirms the conviction for murder as principal in all three killings.

The Revised Penal Code defines conspiracy in Article 8, which supplies the basis for holding the accused liable as a co-conspirator:

Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

The Court relies on the agreement and joint action of the accused, arriving and leaving together, as proof of conspiracy in the commission of the crime.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal has no merit. The testimonies of three eyewitnesses for the prosecution, the eleven year old Orestes Gamboa, his older brother Edgar Gamboa, and the laborer Federico de Lima, were consistent with each other and were not overturned in any way by the defense. The Court found the accused's claim that he did not participate in the killing incredible, since it was he who had a motive for revenge, having resented Genaro's refusal to pay the five hundred peso tax demanded by the New People's Army. His active participation was proven by eyewitnesses whose credibility the defense failed to shake.

On the second issue, the Court held that conspiracy was convincingly established. The accused and his co-accused arrived together at the scene of the crime and left the place together, which the Court treated as convincing proof of conspiracy on the part of all the accused in the commission of the heinous crime.

On the third issue, the Court held that the defense of alibi crumbles in the face of direct and positive identification of the accused at the scene of the crime by the prosecution witnesses. It further noted the absence of proof that the distance from the house of Antao in Ompao, Tarragona to Genaro's farm in Baesan, also in Tarragona, was such as would have made it physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crimes. For that reason the trial court properly rejected his alibi.

Doctrine

• Alibi is a weak defense. It cannot prevail over the direct and positive identification of the accused by credible eyewitnesses, and it succeeds only where the accused proves that the distance between his claimed location and the scene of the crime made it physically impossible for him to be present there.
• Conspiracy may be proved by the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime. Arriving together at the scene and leaving together is convincing proof of a common design, rendering each conspirator liable as principal under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Where the killings are attended by treachery and evident premeditation, the crime is murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and each death supports a separate conviction and a separate penalty.
• The credibility of eyewitnesses, once consistent and unshaken on cross-examination, is sufficient basis for a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in its entirety, with costs against the appellant, so that Valerio Carmina stands convicted of the three murders and sentenced to reclusion perpetua in each case, with the civil indemnity and costs as ordered.

Remember This

Memorize the line that alibi crumbles in the face of direct and positive identification, and that arriving and leaving together is convincing proof of conspiracy. Examiners use this case to test alibi and conspiracy, and to remind candidates that each victim in a multiple killing carries its own conviction and penalty.