October 1969 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > October 1969 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-18519 October 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACABATO ALI:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-18519. October 30, 1969.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MACABATO ALI, Defendant-Appellant.
Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro and Solicitor Enrique M. Reyes for plaintiff- appellee.
Macapandi M. Padate, for Defendant-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WEIGHT AND CREDIBILITY; UNPREJUDICED WITNESS. — Where there is no credible evidence showing prejudice on the part of a prosecution witness, this Court does not believe that she would have imputed to the accused the commission of such a grave offense as that of murder if it was not true that he was really guilty thereof.
2. ID.; ID.; ALIBI; NOT STRONG IN INSTANT CASE. — Where the accused-appellant claimed that in the morning in question, he was in the house of his father, five kilometers away from sitio Baraas scene of the crime, giving lessons on the Koran to a housemate, and that, it was only after one o’clock that he learned of the incident, such alibi although corroborated by said housemate, cannot overcome nor sufficiently weaken that of the prosecution witnesses who clearly and positively pointed to him and his companions as the ones who killed the victim. It is a well settled rule that alibi as a defense can very easily be concocted, and for this reason, to be sustained, it must be supported with strong and unassailable evidence.
2. ID.; ID.; ALIBI; NOT STRONG IN INSTANT CASE. — Where the accused-appellant claimed that in the morning in question, he was in the house of his father, five kilometers away from sitio Baraas scene of the crime, giving lessons on the Koran to a housemate, and that, it was only after one o’clock that he learned of the incident, such alibi although corroborated by said housemate, cannot overcome nor sufficiently weaken that of the prosecution witnesses who clearly and positively pointed to him and his companions as the ones who killed the victim. It is a well settled rule that alibi as a defense can very easily be concocted, and for this reason, to be sustained, it must be supported with strong and unassailable evidence.
D E C I S I O N
DIZON, J.:
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Sur in Criminal Case No. 1775 finding appellant Macabato Ali guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of murder, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided for by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Cabib Dipatuan in the sum of P6,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.
It is not disputed that in the morning of February 23, 1955 Cabib Dipatuan was killed in Baraas, Malabang, Lanao del Sur. This gave rise to the filing of three separate informations for murder in the Court of First Instance of said province: one against herein appellant (Criminal Case No. 1775), another against Faisal Bogabong (Criminal Case No. 1580) and the third against Omar Alo (Criminal Case No. 1812). After a joint trial upon a plea of not guilty entered by the defendants, Ali and Bogabong were found guilty of murder and sentenced accordingly, while Alo was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. Ali and Bogabong appealed, but the latter, with our approval, withdrew his appeal on April 25, 1956 (G.R. No. L-18520).
The appealed judgment is based upon the testimony of Dipumbai Bantuas and Kilala Panangila-an — eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime charged. For this reason appellant’s main contention as expounded in his brief is that the trial court erred in giving credit to the testimony of said witnesses instead of accepting as true that given by the witnesses for the defense, thus reducing the issue herein to a mere question of credibility.
Dipumbai Bantuas, single and twenty-five years of age at the time of the trial, testified that in the morning of February 23, 1955, here now deceased brother-in-law Cabib Dipatuan, left their house at Baraas, Malabang, Lanao, to take a bath in a nearby river, followed by the other prosecution witness Kilala Panangila-an, a teenager student at the time, and one known as Salim; that sometime after they had left the house she also followed them to the river; that upon reaching that place she heard the report of a gun and when she looked towards the direction from which the sound came, she saw Ali, Bogabong and Alo on the other side of the river aiming and firing at Dipatuan; that after the first volley of shots, Dipatuan ran away for cover towards the embankment of the river leading towards her house, but successive shots fired by appellant and his companions hit him and killed him almost instantaneously; that immediately thereafter she informed their relatives of the incident and then went to make report thereof to the P.C. station where she was able to contact Sgt. Mendiola, and that the latter reduced her declaration into writing three days later (Exhibit I); that the probable motive that impelled appellant and his companions to commit the crime was this: both Ali and Bogabong were frustrated suitors of her younger sister who chose to marry the deceased a short time before he was killed.
The testimony of the other eyewitness, Kilala Panangila-an, who was practically right behind Cabib Dipatuan when the latter was on his way to the nearby river to take a bath, is substantially to the same effect. She testified that while Dipatuan was taking a bath in the river and while she and Salim were seated on the nearby embankment, they suddenly heard shots fired from the opposite bank; that when she looked towards that direction. she saw Ali and Bogabong firing at the deceased Dipatuan, and as the latter attempted to run away, he was hit and fell right in front of her; that the distance between the deceased Dipatuan, while he was taking a bath in the river, and appellant and his companions. was hardly eight or nine meters.
P.C. Sgt. Mendiola also took the witness stand and testified that in the morning of February 23, 1965 prosecution witness Dipumbai Bantuas reported the killing of Dipatuan to the headquarters and, as a result, by orders of his Commanding Officer, he immediately proceeded to the place of the incident and to the house of the deceased where he saw his dead body with several gunshot wounds, one at the lack passing through the left nipple, another at the thigh and still another in the forearm; that he then questioned Dipumbai Bantuas and Kilala Panangila-an, both of whom pointed to appellant and Bogabong as the ones who had killed Dipatuan, having thereafter reduced their respective testimony into writing.
The evidence discloses that appellant and his companions a matter of fact, appellant and Bogabong had been unsuccessful suitors of Bantuas’ younger sister. It is true that, to discredit Bantuas’ testimony, appellant testified that she had a grudge against him because he had reported to their elders certain immoral relations between her and the third accused, Omar Alo, for which, after due investigation, Bantuas was fined P500.00 by Macaorao Balindong, Mayor of Malabang. The trial court, however found this to be without merit because said Mayor testified that it was not true that he had imposed such a fine upon Bantuas.
Moreover, appellant admitted that he is a first degree cousin of Bantuas. As there is no credible evidence showing prejudice on Bantuas’ part, We do not believe that he would have imputed to appellant the commission of such a grave offense as that of murder if it was not true that he was really guilty thereof.
Anent his defense of alibi, appellant claimed that in the morning in question he was in the house of his father at sitio Capialo, five kilometers away, more or less, from sitio Baraas, the scene of the incident; that between six and seven o’clock that morning, he was giving lessons on the Koran to a housemate named Macalangon and it was only about one o’clock that day that people passing by their house informed him that Cabib had been killed, for which reason, after he had taken his lunch, he went to Baraas to find out the truth.
His testimony was corroborated by that of Macalangon.
It is well settled, however, that alibi is a defense very easily concocted, and for this reason, to be sustained, it must be supported with strong and unassailable evidence. Appellant’s evidence in this case is far from being of this nature and cannot overcome nor sufficiently weaken that of the prosecution witnesses mentioned heretofore clearly and positively pointing to him and to his companions as the ones who had killed Dipatuan.
WHEREFORE, finding that the appealed judgment is in accordance with law and the evidence, the same is hereby affirmed, with his proportionate share of the costs taxed against appellant. Furthermore, the indemnity awarded in the appealed judgment is hereby increased to P12,000.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Makalintal, J., did not take part.
It is not disputed that in the morning of February 23, 1955 Cabib Dipatuan was killed in Baraas, Malabang, Lanao del Sur. This gave rise to the filing of three separate informations for murder in the Court of First Instance of said province: one against herein appellant (Criminal Case No. 1775), another against Faisal Bogabong (Criminal Case No. 1580) and the third against Omar Alo (Criminal Case No. 1812). After a joint trial upon a plea of not guilty entered by the defendants, Ali and Bogabong were found guilty of murder and sentenced accordingly, while Alo was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. Ali and Bogabong appealed, but the latter, with our approval, withdrew his appeal on April 25, 1956 (G.R. No. L-18520).
The appealed judgment is based upon the testimony of Dipumbai Bantuas and Kilala Panangila-an — eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime charged. For this reason appellant’s main contention as expounded in his brief is that the trial court erred in giving credit to the testimony of said witnesses instead of accepting as true that given by the witnesses for the defense, thus reducing the issue herein to a mere question of credibility.
Dipumbai Bantuas, single and twenty-five years of age at the time of the trial, testified that in the morning of February 23, 1955, here now deceased brother-in-law Cabib Dipatuan, left their house at Baraas, Malabang, Lanao, to take a bath in a nearby river, followed by the other prosecution witness Kilala Panangila-an, a teenager student at the time, and one known as Salim; that sometime after they had left the house she also followed them to the river; that upon reaching that place she heard the report of a gun and when she looked towards the direction from which the sound came, she saw Ali, Bogabong and Alo on the other side of the river aiming and firing at Dipatuan; that after the first volley of shots, Dipatuan ran away for cover towards the embankment of the river leading towards her house, but successive shots fired by appellant and his companions hit him and killed him almost instantaneously; that immediately thereafter she informed their relatives of the incident and then went to make report thereof to the P.C. station where she was able to contact Sgt. Mendiola, and that the latter reduced her declaration into writing three days later (Exhibit I); that the probable motive that impelled appellant and his companions to commit the crime was this: both Ali and Bogabong were frustrated suitors of her younger sister who chose to marry the deceased a short time before he was killed.
The testimony of the other eyewitness, Kilala Panangila-an, who was practically right behind Cabib Dipatuan when the latter was on his way to the nearby river to take a bath, is substantially to the same effect. She testified that while Dipatuan was taking a bath in the river and while she and Salim were seated on the nearby embankment, they suddenly heard shots fired from the opposite bank; that when she looked towards that direction. she saw Ali and Bogabong firing at the deceased Dipatuan, and as the latter attempted to run away, he was hit and fell right in front of her; that the distance between the deceased Dipatuan, while he was taking a bath in the river, and appellant and his companions. was hardly eight or nine meters.
P.C. Sgt. Mendiola also took the witness stand and testified that in the morning of February 23, 1965 prosecution witness Dipumbai Bantuas reported the killing of Dipatuan to the headquarters and, as a result, by orders of his Commanding Officer, he immediately proceeded to the place of the incident and to the house of the deceased where he saw his dead body with several gunshot wounds, one at the lack passing through the left nipple, another at the thigh and still another in the forearm; that he then questioned Dipumbai Bantuas and Kilala Panangila-an, both of whom pointed to appellant and Bogabong as the ones who had killed Dipatuan, having thereafter reduced their respective testimony into writing.
The evidence discloses that appellant and his companions a matter of fact, appellant and Bogabong had been unsuccessful suitors of Bantuas’ younger sister. It is true that, to discredit Bantuas’ testimony, appellant testified that she had a grudge against him because he had reported to their elders certain immoral relations between her and the third accused, Omar Alo, for which, after due investigation, Bantuas was fined P500.00 by Macaorao Balindong, Mayor of Malabang. The trial court, however found this to be without merit because said Mayor testified that it was not true that he had imposed such a fine upon Bantuas.
Moreover, appellant admitted that he is a first degree cousin of Bantuas. As there is no credible evidence showing prejudice on Bantuas’ part, We do not believe that he would have imputed to appellant the commission of such a grave offense as that of murder if it was not true that he was really guilty thereof.
Anent his defense of alibi, appellant claimed that in the morning in question he was in the house of his father at sitio Capialo, five kilometers away, more or less, from sitio Baraas, the scene of the incident; that between six and seven o’clock that morning, he was giving lessons on the Koran to a housemate named Macalangon and it was only about one o’clock that day that people passing by their house informed him that Cabib had been killed, for which reason, after he had taken his lunch, he went to Baraas to find out the truth.
His testimony was corroborated by that of Macalangon.
It is well settled, however, that alibi is a defense very easily concocted, and for this reason, to be sustained, it must be supported with strong and unassailable evidence. Appellant’s evidence in this case is far from being of this nature and cannot overcome nor sufficiently weaken that of the prosecution witnesses mentioned heretofore clearly and positively pointing to him and to his companions as the ones who had killed Dipatuan.
WHEREFORE, finding that the appealed judgment is in accordance with law and the evidence, the same is hereby affirmed, with his proportionate share of the costs taxed against appellant. Furthermore, the indemnity awarded in the appealed judgment is hereby increased to P12,000.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Makalintal, J., did not take part.
