SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 73978-80. April 26, 1989.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ISAIAS GLINOGO alias "BEBOT GURANG" and RUEL RIVERA alias "RUEL AUGUIS" alias "RUEL BAGUIS", accused. RUEL RIVERA alias "RUEL AUGUIS" alias "RUEL BAGUIS", accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Julius Herrera for accused-appellant.
SYLLABUS
1.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 Bartolome, 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, it could have been very easy for the accused to go to 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. Contrary, therefore, to the accused-appellant's claim, his identity was clearly established as one of the victim's attacker.
2.
D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J p:
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 filed 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)
'Accused Isaias Glinogo, alias 'Bebot Gurang' is hereby acquitted for insufficiency of evidence in Crim. Case No. 3713;
'2)
'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) prcd
"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)TSN, pp. 3-13, March 13, 1985).
"2)TSN, pp. 21-26, March 21, 1985).
"3)TSN, pp. 29-32, April 11, 1985). (p. 10 Rollo)
On the other hand, the witnesses for the defense essentially testified:
"1)TSN, pp. 37-41, June 10, 1985).
"2)TSN, pp. 46-48, June 11, 1985).
"3)TSN, pp. 54-56, June 11, 1985).
"4)TSN, pp. 3-6, April 10, 1985). (pp. 10-11, Rollo) llcd
The accused-appellant invokes alibi in his defense. It is r 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 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 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 Bartolome, 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, it could have been very easy for the accused to go to 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 to 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 respect to Alberto Camasora's death. Again Baltazar Galve categorically testified.
Q
A
Q
A
QWhat about this Ruel Auguis, what did he do, if you have seen him?
AHe stabbed Berto Camasora also.
QWhen this Ruel Rivera alias Ruel Auguis stabbed Alberto Camasora, was the latter hit?
AYes, sir.
QWhere was Alberto Camasora hit?
AOn 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 (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.