PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO CARPIO, EDWIN BABLIS, AND ARNOLD CARPIO, ACCUSED, PEDRO CARPIO, APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the joint decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan in Criminal
Case No. 863-S (79) entitled
“People vs. Pedro Carpio and Arnold Carpio” and Criminal Case No. 1214-S (81) entitled
“People vs. Edwin Bablis“, convicting the
accused-appellant Pedro Carpio and Edwin Bablis of the crime of
murder, and acquitting the accused Arnold Carpio.

Pedro Carpio and Arnold Carpio were charged of murder in an
information which states:

“That on or about February 20, 1979, in the municipality of Claveria, province of Cagayan,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, Pedro Carpio and Arnold Carpio,
together with one Edwin Bablis, who is still at large
and not yet apprehended, armed with a gun and a dagger, conspiring together and
helping one another, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and with
treachery, did then and there wilfully and
feloniously assault, attack, shoot and stab
one Luis Pacis, Jr., inflicting several wounds
on his body, which caused his
death.

“That the crime was aggravated with superior strength and
without due regard to the rank of the deceased who was a policeman at the time
of the commission of the crime.

CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Rollo, p.
26)

Accused Edwin Bablis who was
apprehended later was charged of the crime of murder allegedly as follows:

“That on or about February 20, 1979, in the municipality of Claveria, province of Cagayan,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Edwin Bablis y Tadena, together with
Pedro Carpio
and Arnold Carpio who were already charged in
Criminal Case No. 863-S (79) of the same offense before this Honorable Court,
armed with a sharp pointed instrument, conspiring together and helping one
another, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and
stab one Patrolman Luis Pacis, Jr., inflicting upon
him wounds on his body which caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Rollo, p. 27)

The case against the Carpios and Bablis were jointly tried upon agreement of the counsel for
the accused and the prosecution.  After Bablis was arraigned, he escaped from detention.  He was later recaptured but escaped for the
second time and has remained at-large
up to the present.  He was tried in
absentia by the trial court.  After trial, he and appellant, Pedro Carpio were found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and were sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua while Arnold Carpio
was acquitted.  The dispositive
portion of the decision states:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING established facts, events and
incidents, the court finds the accused Pedro Carpio
and Edwin Bablis guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder attended by the
aggravating circumstances of the (sic) treachery, evident premeditation and
superior strength and hereby sentences Pedro Carpio,
accused in Criminal Case No. 863-S (79) to Reclusion Perpetua and Edwin Bablis, accused in Criminal Case No. 1214-S (81), also to
Reclusion Perpetua and to pay jointly and severally
the heirs of the victim the amount of P40,000.00
as actual and moral damages and to pay the costs.

“The accused Arnold Carpio is hereby
absolved and acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

“SO ORDERED”.  (Rollo, p. 49)

Not satisfied with the decision, Carpio
appealed and assigned the following errors:

“I.       THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
PROSECUTION WITNESS AND IN DISREGARDING THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE.

“II.      THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELANT PEDRO CARPIO GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.”

The facts of the case as gathered from the records are as
follows:

Appellant Pedro Carpio
and Pat. Luis Pacis, Jr. were neighbors in Narangtayan, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan,
the former having bought a parcel of land adjacent to the land of the latter,
from the same vendor.            When Pat. Pacis decided to erect a fence on his land,
he met with the vendor and the appellant for them to define the extent of their
respective boundaries.  It turned out
that some trees planted by appellant on the lot he thought was part of the land
sold to him were inside the lot bought by Pat. Pacis.  The latter uprooted the trees and this caused
a serious rift between the two. 
Thereafter, appellant challenged Pat. Pacis to
a fight but he was ignored by the latter. 
At one time, Arnold, the son of appellant, was reported by Pat. Pacis to the barangay captain for
being drunk during curfew hours and Arnold
was made to clean the barangay auditorium as penalty.  After the incident, appellant while drunk
again challenged Pat. Pacis to a fight but the latter
kept his cool (TSN, pp. 288-293, Hearing of June 15, 1984).

On February 14, 1979,
Edwin Bablis, a cousin of appellant and his
co-accused, visited him and his family. 
He stayed for six (6) days in the house of appellant.

In the morning of February
20, 1979, appellant and Bablis were seen
riding in the former’s motorcycle and proceeded westward to the direction of Claveria, Cagayan.  Once in Claveria,
appellant left Bablis at one of the stores at the
national highway in Pantoon (p. 4, Records of
Criminal Case No. 1214-S(81), People v. Bablis) and proceeded to the municipal hall where he asked
Cesar Domingo, a long acquaintance, about Pat. Pacis’ whereabouts.  After having been informed
that Pat. Pacis was about to leave, appellant
told Cesar Domingo “kursunada ko
siya” and then went to the direction of the east
riding in his motorcycle (pp. 16-20, Deposition of Cesar Domingo).

While Pat. Pacis was passing by the
store where appellant left Bablis, the latter clapped
his hands.  This attracted the attention
of Pat. Pacis and he stopped his motorcycle.  Bablis went near
him and requested that he hitch a ride (p. 4, Records of Criminal Case No.
1214-S(81), Id.).  Pat. Pacis acceded
and both rode in the motorcycle.  While negotiating a sharp curve at barangay
Dibalio, Claveria, Cagayan, Pat. Pacis slowed
down.  There, they were seen by Virgilio Ravelo who was driving a
jeepney (TSN, p. 329, Hearing of August 14, 1984).

Francisco Palpallatoc, a prosecution’s
eyewitness testified that at Camalaggaoan mountain in barangay Culao, of the same province, while he was riding in his
motorcycle on the same road going westward towards Claveria,
he saw four persons quarreling at about a distance of 50 meters ahead of
him.  He stopped to observe what was
going on.  He saw Bablis
holding the right hand of Pat. Pacis from behind as Pedro Carpio, who was
fronting Pat. Pacis, stabbed the latter on the breast while Arnold Carpio kept on delivering fist blows on the different parts
of Pat. Pacis body.  When the
latter was able to free himself, he ran towards Palpallatoc and the three gave chase.  Bablis shot
Pat. Pacis
five (5) times with a short firearm but missed.  Pat. Pacis passed
by Palpallatoc and when the three reached the place
where he (Palpallatoc) was, they stopped and warned
him not to reveal what he saw to anybody otherwise they will kill him.  They ordered him to leave immediately and so Palpallatoc left hurriedly. 
At the place where Palpallatoc saw the four
grappling, he noticed a motorcycle, a fatigue cap, and a pair of colored
sunglasses.  Despite passing by several
police checkpoints/stations in going to, and from, his place of destination, Palpallatoc did not report what he witnessed (TSN, pp.
140-154, Hearing of May 3, 1984).

When Pfc. Ambrocio Arizabal,
then OIC of the Police Station of Claveria, received
information from a jeepney driver from Sanchez Mira, Cagayan that the motorcycle of Pat. Pacis
was parked at the road near Camalaggaoan mountain, he sent Pat. Arturo Somera and Pat. Bonifacio Tabaldo
to investigate.  They found the
motorcycle but did not find Pat. Pacis (TSN, pp.126-130, Hearing of April 4, 1983).  The two thought Pat. Pacis
met an accident and he must have been brought to the hospital at Namuac or to any clinic in Claveria.  At the police station where they brought the
motorcycle of Pat. Pacis, they were surprised that
there was no report of any accident. 
They returned to the place where they found the motorcycle to look for
Pat. Pacis.  A few hundred meters away was a trail leading
to a ravine about 10 meters deep.  There, they saw the lifeless body of Pat. Pacis, his fatigue uniform hanging on a branch of a narra tree, his rubber shoes and a black belt with a buckle
marked “boys scout of the Philippines”.  Immediately, they called for the Municipal Health Officer, the Municipal Trial
Court Judge, and a photographer to view the body of Pat. Pacis (TSN, pp. 144-145, May 3,
1983).  The postmortem examination
conducted by the Municipal Health Officer of Claveria
revealed that Pat. Pacis suffered:

“1.  Stab wound, 2 cms. with cleancut edges at right parasternal region between 2nd and 3rd rib, 15.5 cms.
in depth, running antero-posteriorly
and obliquely to the right traversing upper lobe of right lung.

“2.  Stab
wound, 1 cm., superficial, left parasternal
between 3rd and 4th rib.

“3.  Incised wound, 4 cms., superficial, running vertically across left Alae Nassi and upper lip.

“4.  Bite mark, 4 x 2 cms.
at distal
radius.

“5.  Skin
avulsion, 2×2 cms. at
right hypothenar.

“6.  Extensive
abrasions inferior to left elbow, left knee and left anterior leg.

CAUSE OF DEATH:  Profuse hemorrhage from stab wound at right parasternal area.”
(p. 3, Record of Criminal Case No. 1214-S (B1)

Sgt. Francisco Vinagrera, Chief
Investigator of the 115th PC Company stationed at Curva,
Pamplona, Cagayan investigated Pedro Carpio
on February 20, 1979 based
on an information he received from one Patricio Lazo
to whom Palpallatoc confided what he saw.  On April
30, 1979, Sgt. Vinagrera went to the residence of Palpallatoc
to confirm the information.  In the morning of May 1, 1979, Palpallatoc was
brought to the residence of Atty. Rafael Pacis,
brother of Pat. Pacis.  On the same day, Palpallatoc executed an affidavit regarding the
incident.  He was again brought to
the headquarters on May 3,
1979, where he gave
another statement.

On the other hand, the theory of the defense is alibi and simple
denial.

It appears that the accused Pedro Carpio
is the father of Arnold Carpio his co-accused in
Criminal Case No. 863-s (79) while Edwin Bablis is
the first degree cousin of Pedro Carpio, the father
of the latter being the brother of the mother of the Bablis
(TSN, pp. 453; September 25, 1986).

On February 14, 1979,
Edwin Bablis arrived at the house of Pedro Carpio at Nagrangtayan, Sanchez
Mira, Cagayan. 
Edwin stayed in the house of Pedro Carpio
until 5:00 o’clock early morning of February 20, 1979 when he left their
place.  Pedro Carpio
and Edwin Bablis usually conversed after taking their
supper about their relatives in Abulug, Cagayan and never planned anything during the latter’s
sojourn in Nagrangtayan, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan (TSN, pp. 482-483; Hearing of September 25, 1986).

Pedro Carpio contends that he left
their house at Nagrangtayan, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan at about 6:30 in the early morning of February 20, 1979 rode his motorcycle
and arrived at the Taggat Industries Incorporated at 7:00 o’clock of the same morning then reported
for work.  He never left the compound of Taggat Industries, Inc.
until he left for home at about 4:00
o’clock in the afternoon (TSN, pp. 475-482; Hearing of September
25, 1986).

Arnold Carpio stated that he woke up at
about 6:30 early morning of February 20, 1979 then went directly
to the basketball court nearby and played with Henry Bagaso,
Leony Sabuyo, Edgar Cenal, Vicente Labasan and
others.  After playing, he went home,
piled firewood then helped his mother cook their lunch.  After helping his mother cook, he went to
take a bath then took his lunch (TSN, pp. 450-452; Hearing of September 25,
1986).

Appellant alleged that: 
(a) the key prosecution witness, Francisco Palpallatoc
was rehearsed before he testified as shown by the fact that before the latter
gave his statement to the police, he was first brought to the house of Atty.
Rafael Pacis, brother of Pat. Pacis;
(b) Palpallatoc’s testimony is incredible because he
failed to report the commission of the crime to the police despite passing by
several military and police precincts; (c) if it were true that Palpallatoc was at the scene thereof, the deceased could
have requested his assistance or borrowed his motorcycle to escape when being
pursued by his attackers; (d) since Pat.
Pacis was seen with only one companion by Virgilio Ravelo prior to his
death, he could not have been attacked by three (3) men as claimed by Palpallatoc; (e) he was in his place of work at Taggat Industries, Inc., when the crime was committed; (f)
his presence at the scene of the crime was not sufficiently proven and added that no evidence was adduced to
prove conspiracy and evident premeditation.

Appellant’s contentions
are devoid of merit.

This Court has always adhered to the rule that where the issue is
one of credibility of witnesses, the appellate court will not disturb the
findings of the trial court unless certain facts have been overlooked and if
considered might affect the result of the case (People v. Abonada,
G.R. No. 50041, January 27, 1989, 169 SCRA 530; People vs. Tejada, G.R. No. 81520, February
21, 1989, 170 SCRA 497).

On cross-examination Palpallatoc
admitted that he did not immediately report the incident to the police
authorities because he was afraid.  But when asked by Sgt. Vinagrera and Pat.
de la Cruz if he has knowledge of the incident, he
answered in the affirmative.  He was
brought to the police headquarters and later to the house of Atty. Rafael Pacis, one of the private prosecutors (Decision of the
trial court; pp. 8-9; Original Records, pp. 688-689) which is but proper, being
a witness for the prosecution and
does not necessarily imply that he was rehearsed before he gave his statement
to the police.

In the same manner, mere delay in reporting cannot reduce his
credibility.  The Court in many instances
has acknowledged the fact that people are naturally reluctant to get involved
in criminal prosecutions and has consistently refused to regard such delay as a
necessarily negative factor in the evaluation of his testimony (Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA 220-221 [1989]).

Furthermore, the defense failed to prove that in testifying
against appellant, Francisco Palpallatoc was
motivated by ill motive.  In the absence
of convincing evidence that the principal prosecution witness acted because of
improper motives, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith
and credit (People v. Paco, G.R. No. 76893, February
27, 1989, 170 SCRA 681; People vs. Castillo,
G.R. No. 32864, March 8, 1989, 171 SCRA 30).

Appellant’s insinuation that three (3) men could not have
attacked the victim because he was seen only with Bablis
before his death, is untenable.  While it was established that Virgilio Ravelo saw Pat. Pacis with one passenger in his motorcyle
before his death, such circumstance is not incompatible with the fact that Pat.
Pacis was attacked by at least two (2) men, Bablis and appellant as found by the trial court.  It must be noted that the place where Virgilio Ravelo saw Pat. Pacis with
his companion was different from the place where Palpallatoc
saw Pat. Pacis being attacked by appellant, his son and Bablis.

Appellant’s defense of
alibi is unavailing.  He was positively
identified by Francisco Palpallatoc, whose
credibility was not successfully assailed, as the one who stabbed Pat. Pacis while the right hand of the latter was being held by Bablis from behind. 
In case of positive identification, the defense of alibi must be proven
by clear and convincing evidence
(People vs. Alvarez, G.R. No. 70446, January 31, 1989, 169 SCRA 730).  Appellant utterly failed to prove that he was
doing his job at Taggat Industries Inc. during the
commission of the crime.  He did not even request his co-employees to
testify and confirm his presence thereat. 
The defense of alibi merits outright rejection when it could have
been corroborated by other persons and yet no such corroborating evidence was
presented.  (People vs.
Alvarez, supra).

Appellant’s claim that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution
to prove conspiracy between him and the other accused, Edwin Bablis deserves scant consideration.  For conspiracy to exist, the evidence need not
establish the actual agreement which shows the preconceived plan, motive,
interest or purpose in the commission of the crime (Antonio v. Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 595 [1988]).  Conspiracy is manifested in the coordinated
acts of the assailants (People v. Tala, 141 SCRA 240
[1986]) as shown in the case at bar where Bablis was
seen holding the hand of the victim while Carpio was
stabbing the latter and Arnold kept
on delivering fist blows on the victim’s different parts of the body.  When the victim was able to
escape, the accused gave chase and Bablis shot the deceased five (5) times although he
missed.  Undoubtedly the
malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same objective; hence, the
presence of conspiracy (People v. Maralit, 165 SCRA
427 [1988]).

But the presence of
treachery or abuse of superiority was not convincingly established.  For treachery to be appreciated, the culprits
must have employed means directly and specially tending to insure the killing without risk to themselves and
that such means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted (People v.
Rellon, 167 SCRA 75 [1988]; People v. Marciales, 166 SCRA 436 [1988]).  The victim in the instant case was not
rendered totally helpless and defenseless because only his right hand was held
by the other accused while the
appellant stabbed him.  The victim even
succeeded in freeing himself from his assailants and still managed to escape to
a distance of about 100 meters
from the scene of the incident. 
Witness Palpallatoc testified that there were
three (3) assailants.  However, the
participation of the other accused,
Arnold Carpio, son of appellant, was not given
credence by the trial court.  In fact,
the trial court acquitted him on
reasonable doubt.  Thus, it appears then
that only two persons took part in the commission of the crime, the
appellant, Pedro Carpio and the other accused Edwin Bablis.

The fact that there were two (2) male persons who attacked the
victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed
with abuse of superior strength there being no proof of the relative strength
of the aggressors and the victim.

The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength
depends on the age, size and strength of the parties.  It is considered whenever there is a
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing
a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is
selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.  To take advantage
of superior strength means to
purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of the defense
available to the person attacked (People v. Cabato,
G.R. No. L-37400, April 15,
1988, 160 SCRA 101).  The prosecution failed to prove that there
was indeed a notorious inequality between the ages, sizes and strength of the
antagonists and that these notorious advantages were purposely sought for or
used by the accused to achieve his ends.

The trial court correctly found that commission of the felony was
not attended by the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation.  The fact that the accused-appellant and Edwin
Bablis were seen riding together on the former’s motorcycle does not by itself prove that they were
then determined to commit the crime.  Not
even appellant’s remark, “kursunado ko siya” (referring to the
victim) uttered to Cesar Domingo in the municipal hall when he was looking for the victim, constitute
a sufficient proof that it was during that time that he was determined to kill Pacis.  Evident
premeditation cannot be considered to qualify murder where it is not shown when the plan to kill was hatched, or what time elapsed before
it was carried out (People v. Corpus, 107 Phil. 44 [1960]; People v. Acaya, No. 72998, July 29, 1988, 163 SCRA 768).

In the absence of any
qualifying circumstance, the crime committed is only homicide.  The
penalty for homicide under Article
249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal.  There is no mitigating and no aggravating
circumstance.  Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the accused-appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor
as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal
as maximum.  In line with the new policy of
this Court to grant an increased indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, the
award of P40,000.00 is hereby increased to P50,000.00 (People v. Daniel Sison, G.R. No. 86455, September 14, 1990).

ACCORDINGLY, except for the above modification, the
decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Grino-Aquino, JJ., concur.