PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULIO TENEBRO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal interposed from the judgment rendered by the
Regional Trial Court of South Cotabato in Criminal
Cases Nos. 4100 and 4101, finding the accused, Julio Tenebro,
guilty of the crimes of Murder and Parricide and sentencing him, in each case,
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P30,000.00 and to pay
the costs.

In two (2) separate Informations filed
with the Regional Trial Court of South Cotabato,
Julio Tenebro was charged with the crimes of Murder
and Parricide, allegedly committed, as follows:

1.  Criminal Case No.
4100, for Murder:

“That on or about the 20th day of October, 1985, at Sitio Kitagas, Barangay Katubao, Municipality of
Kiamba, Province of South Cotabato,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused armed with a piece of wood and with evident
premeditation and treachery, did then and there with intent to kill willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and beat one IGMEDIO AMBAT, JR. with
the use of the said piece of wood, inflicting on him multiple skull fractures
and widespread echymosis covering the entire face and
as a result thereof said IGMEDIO AMBAT, JR. died thereafter.”^[1]

2.  Criminal Case No.
4101, for Parricide:

“That on or about the 20th day of October, 1985, at Sitio Kitagas, Barangay Katubao, Municipality of
Kiamba, Province of South Cotabato,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused
armed with a piece of wood,
with evident premeditation and treachery and lack of respect due to age of the
offended party, did then and there with intent to kill willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and beat his grandmother Antonia vda. de Tenebro with the use of the said piece of wood
hitting her and inflicting on her multiple skull fractures on the jaw and
forehead and multiple lacerated wounds on her head, and as a result thereof said ANTONIA VDA. DE TENEBEO died
thereafter.”^[2]

When arraigned, the
accused Julio Tenebro pleaded “Not Guilty” to the commission of the crimes charged.^[3]

The evidence of record shows
that in the morning of 21 October
1985, the dead bodies of Antonia Tenebro, an 85
year-old widow, and her houseboy, Igmedio Ambat, Jr., were found at the old woman’s residence in Sitio Kitagas, Barangay Katubao, Kiamba, South Cotabato.  The post-mortem exami­nation showed that
Antonia Tenebro sustained “multiple skull
fracture (jaw, forehead), multiple lacerated wounds (head), and
widespread Echymosis, lower half of the face”^[4]
while Igmedio Ambat, Jr.
suffered “multiple skull fracture (Acciput), and widespread Echymosis,
covering the entire face.”^[5]
The cause of death in both cases was “Hemorrhage due to multiple skull
fracture.”^[6]

The deaths were reported to an Army detachment posted nearby and
to the policemen of Kiamba who then conducted an
investigation.  Upon questioning, Benig Macampao, the old woman’s encargado, and Igmedio Ambat, Sr., father of the slain houseboy, who both lived nearby, shared a suspicion that Ruben Bustamante, who did odd
jobs for the deceased widow and whom they saw in the house of Antonia Tenebro in the evening of 20 October 1985, was the culprit
since he had suddenly left the place after paying his debt to a sister very
early in the morning of 21 October 1985.^[7]

Accordingly, a search for the said Ruben Bustamante
was made.  Army soldiers found him in Sitio Lomoyan, also of Kiamba town.  He was
brought to the police station and upon interrogation, he denied the killings
and pointed to Julio Tenebro, a grandson of Antonia Tenebro, as the person responsible.  He declared that in the early evening of 20 October 1985, Julio Tenebro passed by his house and brought him to a tuba store
near the barangay hall of Kitagas
where Julio Tenebro bought half a gallon of
tuba.  After Julio Tenebro
had consumed the tuba, which he drank by himself, as Ruben Bustamante
was recuperating from an illness, they went home.  When they came near the house where Antonia Tenebro lived, Julio Tenebro went
to the drier or “pugon” and got a piece of
wood (“dos por dos”). 
Bustamante
asked what it was for, but Julio Tenebro told him to
just keep quiet.

Julio Tenebro then knocked on the door
and it was opened by Igmedio Ambat, Jr. Julio Tenebro told Bustamante to get
inside the house, but the latter refused, so that he was left outside.  Upon
entering the house, Julio Tenebro told the boy to go back to sleep and proceed
upstairs, to the living quarters of Antonia Tenebro.  Bustamante then
heard sounds, as if somebody was being beaten, coming from upstairs.  After a short while, he saw Julio Terebro beating the boy, Igmedio Ambat, Jr., who was sleeping, on the head, three
times.  After beating the boy, Julio Tenebro went outside and told Bustamante
not to talk or else he will also
kill him.  Then, they parted.  Bustamante went to
his own house.  He did not report the incident
because he was afraid that Julio Tenebro would also kill him.^[8]

As a result, Julio Tenebro was arrested
in the afternoon of 21 October 1985.  But he was released the next day.  After his release, Julio Tenebro
went to the wake of his grandmother, where he met his aunt, Luciana Tenebro?Calatrava. 
Her uncontroverted testimony reads:

“A   On
October 22, 1985 at about 10:00 o’clock in the morning, my niece Imelda and I
went inside the room of my mother and we sat on the bed and I was so sad
because of what happened to my mother and later on, Julio Tenebro
came in and he said:  ‘AUNTIE, LUOY KAAYO
SI LOLA SA IYANG PAGKAMATAY’ (‘Auntie, the death of Lola is very pitiable’).

And then he continued telling me that
during the first strike, the feet of the old woman was raised up; on the second
strike his grandmother trembled or shivered.

So I immediately stood up and said:  ‘Boy, so you are the one who killed your Iola
otherwise how would you know that her feet rose on the first strike and then
she trembled on the second strike?’

Immediately Julio left the room and went
towards the kitchen without answering me.”^[9]

It also appears that two (2) days before the
incident, or on 18 October 1985, 
Julio Tenebro went to the store of Santos
Baron to buy tuba.  As Julio Tenebro was drinking the tuba, he said to Santos Baron:

“A    This
Boy Tenebro told me, ‘Nong
Santos, my lola will not live long anymore’.

Q    What
else did he say if he said anything more?

A     He
said:  ‘What I will use in killing her
will be a 2 x 2 piece of wood to be struck at her forehead’.

Q    What else did he say?

A     And
he also said:  ‘That Berting
Calatrava, his neck will be cut by a scythe.’”^[10]

Julio Tenebro,
however, denied that he killed his grandmother and Igmedio
Ambat, Jr.  He
claimed that he was sleeping in his house, about one kilometer away from the house
of his grandmother, on the night
of 20 October 1985, together with his wife and children and came to know of his grandmother’s death only in the
morning of 21 October 1985, while he was gathering coconuts.  He further claimed that he heard Ruben Bustamante tell the police investigators that he (Bustamante) killed the old woman and hid some money near
the tractor.^[11]

His claim was corroborated by Pat. Ismael
Salvacion of the Kiamba police station, who testified that
Ruben Bustamante admitted to him that he (Bustamante) killed Antonia Tenebro
because the old woman always scolded him.^[12]

The trial court, however, found the accused Julio Tenebro
guilty of the crimes charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalties
hereinbefore stated.

In this appeal, the
accused Julio Tenebro assails the correctness of the
court’s decision, contending mainly that the said court erred in convicting him of the crimes of Murder and
Parricide and in disregarding the testimony of witnesses supporting his claim
that Ruben Bustamante is the real culprit.

To be sure, the issue of whether Ruben Bustamante
or the accused Julio Tenebro is responsible for the
deaths of Antonia Tenebro and Igmedio
Ambat, Jr. involves the credibility of witnesses and we have repeatedly
upheld the well established rule that the highest degree of respect is accorded
to the findings of the trial court, the latter being in the position to observe
the demeanor and manner of testifying of the witnesses, unless there is a
showing that the trial court had overlooked certain facts of substance and weight that, if considered, might
affect the result of the case.  And where
there is irreconcilable conflict
in the testimonies for the prosecution and for the defense, as in the instant
case, the appellate court will not disturb the findings of fact of the trial
court when the evidence of the prevailing party is adequate to sustain the
judgment appealed from.^[13]

We have made a thorough and careful study of the record of these cases, and we find no cogent
reason to disturb the findings and conclusion of the trial court that the
accused Julio Tenebro is guilty of the crimes
charged.  The trial court found that the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses “are not only congruous and consistent but credible and straight forward” whereas
the defendant’s alibi “was so weak that it can not impair and much less
shall prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses who iden­tified
him as the very person who killed the deceased in the evening of 20 October
1985.”^[14]

It is not also shown that the witnesses for the prosecution had
improper motives to testify falsely against the accused.  The prosecution witness Luciana Calatrava is a very close relative of the appellant, being
the sister of the appellant’s
father.  She would not have testified
against the accused if her testimony were not true.

The trial court was correct in rejecting the alibi of the
accused.  It is well settled that alibi
cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses and
their clear identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the
crimes.  This is so because alibi is a
defense that is inherently weak as it can be easily fabricated or concocted.^[15]
Besides, to establish an alibi, the accused must show that it was impossible
for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. 
In the instant cases, the accused declared that his house was only a
kilometer away from the house where his grandmother, Antonia Tenebro, lived,^[16]
so that it was not impossible for him to be at the house of his grandmother
when the crimes were committed.

The trial court did not also commit error in rejecting the
appellant’s claim that Ruben Bustamante is the real
culprit.  The reasons advanced by him to
support his submission are not based upon convincing evidence.  Thus, the appellant claims that Ruben Bustamante admitted to one Pat. Ismael
Salvacion that he killed Antonia Tenebro
because the old woman always scolded him. 
However, the veracity of this statement is dubious.  According to Pat. Salvacion,
the admission of guilt was made to him on 24 October 1985, while Ruben Bustamante
was detained at the Kiamba police station.^[17]
If this admission of guilt was in fact
made, it would have been natural for the said Pat. Salvacion
to put his statement in writing in view of his sworn duty to uphold the law,
and the fact that Julio Tenebro is his friend.^[18]
But, Pat. Salvacion failed to put down the alleged
statement in writing and he did not offer any plausible explanation why he did
not do so.  Besides, Ruben Bustamante declared that he did not know a policeman named Salvacion.^[19]

At any rate, this alleged admission of guilt to Pat. Salvacion appears to be an after-thought.  In the motion for the reinvestigation of the
cases, filed by appellant’s counsel on 15
January 1986, no mention was made of an admission to Pat. Ismael Salvacion.  The ground relied upon by the appellant’s
counsel in said motion was that Ruben Bustamante had
allegedly signed a written confession in
the presence of Pat. Romeo
Atuel and Pat. Daligdig.^[20]

The appellant insists that Ruben Bustamante
is the person responsible for the deaths of Antonia Tenebro
because he was seen wearing the new Adidas shorts of Igmedio
Ambat, Jr. when he was apprehended in the morning of 21 October 1985.

This fact, however, has
been satisfactorily explained.  Ruben Bustamante declared that the said shorts were given to him
by lgmedio Ambat, Jr. in
payment of a debt.  His testimony reads:

“Q   The truth of the matter Mr. Bustamante is you were wearing a new Adidas short pants, is
it not, when you arrived at the house of Antonia Tenebro?

A     Yes sir, because this Igmedio Ambat owed me something
and so he just paid me with an Adidas pants his indebtedness.”^[21]

The
explanation is plausible and is in accord with human behavior.

The appellant further
claims that Ruben Bustamante had told Pat. Atuel that he (Bustamante) took
P4,000.00 from Antonia Tenebro which he hid near a
tractor.

This claim, however, is
ambiguous.  The testimony of Pat. Romeo Atuel reads, as follows:

“FISCAL AMPIG:

“Q   Patrolman
Atuel, you mentioned about the Four Thousand Pesos
(P4,000.00) in the cross exami­nation. 
Now, who told you about this P4,000.00 which was supposedly taken from
the house of the victim, Antonia
Tenebro?

A     Ruben
Bustamante.

Q    When
did he tell you that?

A     During
the time when he said that they got that amount from the house of Antonia Tenebro together with Julio Tenebro.

Q    And
the amount was never recovered?

A     No,
sir.

FISCAL AMPIG:

That will be all Your
Honor.

COURT:

Q    Who
got hold of the Four Thousand (P4,000.00) Pesos?

Q    And
he never surrendered that to the police?

A     No,
Your Honor.”^[22]

While Bustamante
may have told Pat. Atuel that some amount of money was taken from the house of Antonia Tenebro, it
is not clear that it was Bustamante who took the
money.

One other reason advanced by the appellant in support of his claim that Ruben Bustamante is the real culprit, is that Ruben Bustamante left, very early in the morning of 21 October 1985, for Lomoyon, about two (2) kilometers away, on foot,
without waiting for a jeep which
is usually available at 8:00 o’clock in the morning,.

The fact that Bustamante went to Lomoyon on foot, without waiting for a jeep to take him there, cannot be
considered as flight indicative of guilt. 
The distance was short
and Bustamante may have wanted to save the money
intended for his fare.  Anyway, if he
wanted to hide, he would not have gone to a very near place where he could be
easily found.

The appellant also claims that Bustamante
killed Antonia Tenebro because the latter had previously charged Bustamante
with theft of P500.00.

Hipolito Nunag, Sr., the
barrio captain of Katubao, Kiamba,
South Cotabato, declared that sometime in the early part of 1985, the late Antonia Tenebro complained to him that Bustamante
had stolen some money from
her.  However, he said that he referred
the complaint to the barangay captain of Lomoyon, where Bustamante
was made to sign a promissory note after which he was forgiven by Antonia Tenebro.  His
testimony reads, as follows:

“Q   You said that the late Mrs. Antonia Tenebro once complained to you that Ruben Bustamante stole some money from the old woman.  When was this?

A     That
was in the early part of 1985.

Q    What
happened to that complaint?

A     I
submitted it to the adjacent barangay captain of Lomoyon.

Q     Do
you know what happened to the
case before the barangay captain of the adjacent
barrio in Lomoyon?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    What
happened?

A     He
was made to sign a promissory note admitting that be stole the amount and a
date was set for his payment.

Q    When
was that if you know?

A     This
was in the early part of 1985.

Q    After
that did not Ruben Bustamante go on working with the
old woman?

A     Yes
sir, because the old woman took him back.

Q    In
other words everything was forgiven?

A     Maybe.

Q    And
perhaps as a barangay captain you can say that the
relationship between the two were already already?  (sic)

A     Maybe.

Q    Your
answer is maybe sir and this is because you did not observe any untoward
incident between the old woman and Ruben Bustamante
after that Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) incident?

A     Yes,
sir.”^[23]

Since Bustamante
had been forgiven by Antonia Tenebro and taken back to her good graces, the complaint
lodged before Hipolito Nunag,
Sr. could not have motivated Bustamante into killing
Antonia Tenebro and Igmedio
Ambat, Jr.

WHEREFORE, the
judgment of conviction is hereby AFFIRMED. 
However, the indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victims is hereby increased to P50,000.00 in
each case, in line with recent
decisions of the Court.  Costs against
the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Original Record, p. 1

^[2]
Id., p. 3

^[3]
Id., pp. 43, 44

^[4]
Exhibit B

^[5]
Exhibit C

^[6]
Exhibists B-1 and C-1

^[7]
tsn of July
28, 1985, p. 297; tsn of July 18, 1986, pp. 154-155

^[8]
tsn of June
9, 1986, pp. 6-16

^[9]
tsn of July
22, 1986, p. 196

^[10]
tsn of June
10, 1986, pp. 85-86

^[11]
tsn of September
5, 1987, pp. 317-319, 323-328, 351

^[12]
tsn of October 14, 1986, pp. 229-231

^[13]
People vs. Tila-on, 112 Phil. 546

^[14]
Decision, pp. 5-6

^[15]
People vs. Abigan, G.R. No. 69674, September 15, 1986, 144 SCRA 130 and
cases cited therein.

^[16]
tsn of November
25, 1987, p. 348

^[17]
tsn of October
14, 1986, p. 229

^[18]
Id., p. 235

^[19]
tsn of June
10, 1986, pp. 58-59

^[20]
Original Record, pp. 37-38

^[21]
tsn of June 10, 1986, p. 52

^[22]
tsn of July 17, 1986, pp. 140-141

^[23]
tsn of October 14, 1986, pp. 255-257