THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO YEBAN, RODOLFO YEBAN, JOSE YEBAN, PATERNO YEBAN AND JOHN DOE, DEFENDANTS, RICARDO YEBAN, RODOLFO YEBAN AND JOSE YE…

The senseless ambush of several persons leading to the death of
one of them is the cause of this prosecution.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction by the Regional
Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan
dated May 17, 1989, which was amended on May 23, 1989 convicting the accused of
murder and frustrated murder charged in three (3) separate informations filed
against them, the dispositive part of which reads as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, after evaluating the evidence on record, this Court
is of the opinion, and so holds, that the accused, Rodolfo Yeban,
Ricardo Yeban and Jose Yeban
are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as
principals, of the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No. 2474, of Attempted
Murders in Criminal Cases Nos. 2475 and 2476 and hereby imposes upon each of
them the penalties as follows:

“An indeterminate sentence of Ten (10) years and One (1)
day of prision mayor, as minimum to Eighteen (18)
years Eight (8) months and one day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, for
the murder of Jolito Ilarina,
as this crime is defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Penal Code,
with the modification of the penalty as a result of the abolition of the
capital punishment by the 1987 Constitution; hence, the penalty now for Murder
is Reclusion Temporal in its Maximum period to Reclusion Perpetua
and in the absence of any modifying
circumstance, the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior
strength being absorbed in the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the
penalty should be imposed in its medium period or from Eighteen (18) years 8 months and 1 day to twenty (20) years.  With the application of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the penalty boils down
to what is imposed above, and no longer Reclusion Perpetua;
and to pay the heirs of Jolito Ilarina
jointly and severally, the sum of P30,000.00 as death indemnity; In Criminal
Cases Nos. 2475 and 2476, there being no modifying circumstance and with
the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, each of the said accused is
sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment ranging from Two (2) years Ten months and Twenty days of prision
correccional as minimum to Six (6) years and 1
day  of prision
mayor as maximum, for each of the said two crimes of Attempted  Murder.”^[1]

At around 10:00 or 11:00 o’clock in the evening of April 2, 1987, while Jolito Ilarina,
Jupiter Deocampo and Alfredo Yabut were walking towards Barangay Daja Sur, Banga, Aklan from Barangay
Navitas, Malinao, Aklan, Alfredo Yabut was hit on the left eyebrow by a stone.  Immediately, Jose Yeban
appeared and stabbed Alfredo Yabut hitting him on the
right forearm, so Yabut fell to the ground facing
upward.

Jolito Ilarina
was then assaulted with a bolo by Rodolfo Yeban who
hit the former on the head and face. Paterno also
assaulted Jolito with a bolo that landed on the victim’s stomach.

After Yabut fell to the ground, Jose Yeban turned to Jolito Ilarina and stabbed the latter on the knees while already
lying on the ground.  Meanwhile, Ricardo Yeban repeatedly hacked Jupiter Deocampo,
hitting the latter on the left forearm, hand and left ear.  He also joined the assault on the helpless Ilarina hitting him three times on the chest.

During the incident Ricardo Yeban
shouted that he was injured.  The Yebans chased Jupiter with one of them shouting “let
us kill him because I was already wounded.” Deocampo
ran and jumped into the Aklan river to save himself.

Alfredo Yabut also fled towards Daja Sur, Banga,
Aklan, while Jolito laid dead on the ground.

The post mortem examination report on
the body of Jolito showed a total of 26 hacking and
stab wounds which include:

“1.   Head hacking wounds six in number at the
parietal portions and the face.

2.   Stab wound at the base of the neck anterior
portion.

3.   Chest anterior portion 3 stab wounds non-penetrating.

4.   Abdomen
anterior portion.  Hacking wound at the
left lumbar portion.

5.   Abdomen stab wounds non-penetrating at the
right lumbar portion at the level of the umbilicus.

6.   Hacking wound at the left knee joint, patilla cut off.

7.   Left upper extremity multiple hacking wounds
3 in number.

8.   Back-multiple hacking wounds at the supra
scapular regions infra scapular regions, abdomen and buttocks ten (10) in
number.”^[2]

The death of said victim was due to cardiac arrest secondary to
massive hemorrhage due to multiple hacking and stab wounds.

Jupiter sustained the
following injuries according to the Medico-Legal report of Dr. Rufo Refendor:

“Hacking wound, 10 cm. dorsal aspect, hand, left.

Hacking wound, 10 cm. mid. 3rd, antero-medical
aspect forearm, left.

Hacking wound, 5 cm. Hypothenar area,
hand, left.

Incised wound-avulsion, pinnae,
left” (Exhibit A for Criminal Case No. 2475; tsn,
December 5, 1987, p. 3).^[3]

The wounds suffered by Alfredo Yabut as
shown by the medical certificate issued by Dr. Querubin
Iguban are:

“1.  Abrasion with Hematoma
left eye.

2.   Incised wound, skin deep 1 inch long at the lateral side of the
arm” (Exhibit A for Criminal Case No. 2476).^[4]

After arraignment of all the accused, except Paterno
Yeban who was at large, they entered a plea of not
guilty and after a joint trial on the merits of the three cases, the aforestated decision of the trial court was promulgated
convicting them of the offenses charged.

Hence, this appeal which is predicated on the following grounds:

(1)     that
the Honorable Court erred in finding that the accused were the ones who
committed the crimes subject of these cases; and that

(2)     the
Honorable Court erred in holding the accused guilty of the crime of murder.^[5]

After careful examination of the records, the Court finds the
appeal to be devoid of merit.

The main thrust of the defense of the appellants is alibi.  Rodolfo Yeban
claimed that he was with his brother Paterno at the
dance hall at around 11:00 o’clock in
the evening of April 2, 1987.  Jose Yeban and
Ricardo Yeban, however, alleged that they were then in their house about four kilometers away from the dance
hall.  Hence, they assert they could not
have been at the scene of the crime when the same took place.

The house of Jose Yeban at Rosario, Malinao, Aklan
where Jose and Ricardo Yeban claimed to be on the
night of April 2, 1987 is
only about 4-1/2 kilometers away from the scene of the crime.

The dance hall at Malinao where Rodolfo
and Paterno Yeban alleged
they were is only half a kilometer away from
the place of the hacking incident.

The rule is too well-known that the defense of alibi can prosper
only if it is so convincing as to
preclude any doubt that the accused could not have been physically present at
the scene of the crime or its vicinity at the time of its commission.

Moreover, the appellants were positively and uniformly identified
by no less than two eyewitnesses/victims (Alfredo Yabut
and Jupiter Deocampo) as the perpetrators thereof,
describing in sordid detail the diabolic assault of the appellants.  In the face of such positive identification
of the appellants, the defense of alibi must necessarily fall.

The appellants then alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses Yabut and Deocampo.
As the alleged inconsistencies were on minor matters, rather than affecting the
credibility of said witnesses, they fortify the said testimonies as voluntary
and unrehearsed.

The finding of the trial court as to the credibility of the
witnesses may not be disturbed on appeal because of its superior advantage in
observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying unless
some facts and circumstances may have been overlooked that may otherwise affect
the result of the case.

It is of no moment whether the three victims were walking side by
side or one after the other; that Yabut saw the
appellants two or three meters away while Jupiter Deocampo
did not; that Yabut was boloed
once or several times by Jose Yeban; and that his hands were on his body and raised in a
defensive stance when he was being boloed, as alleged
by appellants.  What is clear is that the
prosecution has satisfactorily proved that on the evening of April 2, 1987, Yabut,
Deocampo and Ilarina were
criminally assaulted with boloes by the appellants which caused the death of Ilarina
and the injuries of the other two.

The appellants call attention to the trivial matter that as Yabut said
he was hit with a stone on his forehead, yet upon examination the Court found
no scar on the same.  Yabut
testified on November 20, 1987,
one year and seven months after the incident so that certainly the scar or
trace of hematoma on his left eyebrow could no longer
be visible.  Nevertheless, said injury is attested by the medical
certificate and testimony of the physician.^[6]

Appellants also find it surprising that Yabut
did not know the names of the appellants’ father and sons when he could
recognize them having met them at the cockpit, specially
in a small locality in their barrio. 
This is not surprising.  Many
people who frequent cockpits or similar public places would not know each other
by name but recognize each other at least by face.  This is what turned out in the case at bar.

Appellants then argue that because of the unstable peace and
order condition in Malinao, it is not believable that
the appellants carried no arms with them that evening.  The fact that they had no arms with them does
not really matter.

Appellants maintain that Yabut and Deocampo did not immediately report the incident to the
police either that same night or the following morning and that the wife of Jolito Ilarina was
informed by Jupiter about the death of her husband only two days after and one
week later in the case of Yabut.  The records, however, clearly show that Yabut, immediately after the incident, informed Lindo Ilarina, Jolito’s brother, about the incident upon the latter’s
arrival at Daja Sur, Banga, Aklan.  Thus, they proceeded to the house of Barrio
Captain Manuel Nagtalon and reported the matter to
him.  The following
day, after his wounds were treated by the physician, Yabut
dropped by the scene of the crime where he presented himself to the policemen
who were then conducting their on-the-spot investigation.^[7]

On the other hand, Jupiter Deocampo,
after successfully evading his pursuing aggressors and upon reaching Daja Sur, Banga,
Aklan, went to Barangay
Captain Manuel Nagtalon to report the matter.  The next day, he reported the incident to a
certain Jimmy Dadivas at the police station of Banga, Aklan.^[8]

Amelia Ilarina also learned of her
husband’s death from the latter’s elder brother at 8:00
o’clock in the morning of April 3, 1987.

The appellants then insisted that the identification conducted at
the police headquarters of Malinao, Aklan was faulty because no line-up was made for the
purpose of identifying the perpetrators and only the appellants were made to
face Yabut and Deocampo.  Thus, appellants contend that there was a frame-up on the part of the policemen
who investigated the case.

The Court sees nothing irregular in an investigation by the law
enforcement agencies where the suspects are presented to the witnesses/victims for possible
identification.  If none of them were
present then they would not be identified by said witnesses/victims.  However,
since the night of the incident was clear with the stars about and Yabut was familiar with the faces of the appellants they
were positively identified by said witnesses/victims at the confrontation.^[9]
Besides, the identity of said appellants was confirmed by the said witnesses on
the witness stand.

The appellants decry the fact that the autopsy of the cadaver of
the victim Jolito Ilarina
was made only a week after the cadaver had been already embalmed.  While it is true that such autopsy should be
made soon after the incident, its delay is
of no material consequence.  In
fact, the autopsy shows that Jolito Ilarina was stabbed and hacked 26 times in different parts
of his body.  Moreover, appellants were
positively identified.

The appellants then state that the alleged motive in the
commission of the crime by the appellants, i.e., to avenge the
assault against Robert Inaudito (the grandson of Jose
Yeban and nephew of Ricardo, Rodolfo and Paterno Yeban) by Erwin Mirano (a co-resident of Jolito Ilarina and Jupiter Deocampo at Daja Sur, Aklan)
is a very remote possibility.

Suffice it to say that motive is essential only where there is
doubt as to the identity of the culprit and not where the accused are positively identified as the assailants.

The Court reproduces with approval the summation of the case by the Solicitor General,
as follows:

“The sum of the evidence at hand rests the mind to the
conviction that, indeed,
accused-appellants Jose Yeban, Ricardo Yeban, Rodolfo Yeban, including Paterno Yeban who remains at
large, committed the felonies of Murder for the death of Jolito
Ilarina, Frustrated Murder on the person of Alfredo Yabut, and Frustrated Murder upon Jupiter Deocampo.  The
evidence is all too convincing, thus: 
they were all positively identified by both Alfredo Yabut
and Jupiter Deocampo, themselves victims of the
criminal assault (tsn, November 9, 1987, pp. 5-6, 8;
November 20, 1987, pp. 3-7, 21, 30, 35; December 4, 1987, pp. 4-7, 12, 13); Yabut and Deocampo described blow
by candid blow the manner, sequence and intensity of the attack (tsn, November 9, 1987, pp. 4-7, 8-10, 11; November 20,
1987, pp. 3-4, 5-11, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35; December 4, 1987, pp. 3-5, 6, 8-9,
10-11, 12-13, 16; December 7, 1987, pp. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26); the description of the  mortal and multiple wounds inflicted upon Jolito Ilarina and the injuries
upon themselves (Yabut and Deocampo)
were corroborated by the Post Mortem Examination Report on Ilarina
(Exhibit A) and the Medical Certificate (Exhibit A for Criminal Case No. 2476)
and Medico-Legal Report (Exhibit A for Criminal Case No. 2475) on Alfredo Yabut and Jupiter Deocampo
respectively; the testimonies of both Alfredo Yabut
and Jupiter Deocampo that one of the attackers
exclaimed during the incident that he was wounded (tsn,
November 20, 1987, p. 8; December 4, 1987, pp. 13, 16) was unwittingly
corroborated by Ricardo Yabut himself who testified to the fact that he sustained a
cut on his right hand that evening of April 2, 1987 (tsn,
May 10, 1988, pp. 5-6) when the crimes were committed; Eliseo
Gumban testified that in the early morning of April
3, 1987, Ricardo Yeban with seven other companions
came over to
his house to hire his tricycle
to conduct him (Ricardo) to the hospital, even as six boloes
wrapped in a hammock were handed to Eliseo Gumban, one of which contained stains of blood (tsn, October 9, 1987, pp. 
9-11, 14, 17), and which fact (that they left the boloes
with Eliseo Gumban) Jose Yeban himself confirmed (tsn, May
20, 1988, pp. 11-12); Dr. Iguban who conducted an
autopsy on Jolito Ilarina
and who attended to the wounds of Alfredo Yabut, as
well as Dr. Refendor who treated Jupiter Deocampo both expressed their belief that the injuries
suffered by the three victims could have been caused by a sharp bladed
instrument (tsn, September 15, 1987, pp. 2, 6, 8-9;
December 7, 1987, pp. 3-4).

Appreciation of the above evidence leads to the inexorable
conclusion that accused-appellants committed the crimes of Murder and two
Attempted Murders for which they must now answer.”^[10]

For the crime of murder of Jolito Ilarina, the trial court imposed on the appellants the
penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum, to eighteen (18)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day as maximum.  The correct penalty to be imposed on
appellants should be reclusion perpetua.^[11] The indemnity to the heirs of the victim Jolito Ilarina is raised to P50,000.00 in accordance with the resolution of the Court en
banc dated August
30, 1990.

WHEREFORE, with the above modification as to the penalty
and indemnity, the judgment is affirmed in all other respects, with costs
against appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1] Pages 93 to 94, Rollo.

^[2] Pages 30 to 31, Rollo.

^[3] Page 31, Rollo.

^[4] Page 32, Rollo.

^[5] Pages 11 and 23, Brief for the Appellants,
pages 62 and 74, Rollo.

^[6] Exhibit A; TSN, September 15, 1987, pp. 12-13.

^[7] TSN, November 20, 1987, page 47; September
16, 1987, page 9.

^[8] Ibid, page 32.

^[9] TSN, November 20, 1987, pp. 12 and 13; December 7, 1987, page 27.

^[10] Pages 28 to 30,
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee.

^[11] People vs. Muñoz, 170 SCRA 107 (1989).