Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Ernesto P. Pangalangan for defendants-appellants.
On April 27, 1987, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
The case against accused RICARDO BACO who is already dead is DISMISSED.
It is the contention of accused-appellant that even if he (Cantuba) did approach the victim with a gun in his hand, it was never established that the fatal shot came from his gun.
The contention is untenable. First, the factual points marshalled by the appellants do not engender reasonable doubt as to his (Cantuba) culpability. Second, even assuming that he (Cantuba) never fired his gun, he would still be principally liable as a co-consipirator in the killing of Atty. Celera under the principle that the act of a conspirator is the act of all co-conspirators. The degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial in a conspiracy.
With regard to the alleged conflicting testimonies of the two principal witnesses, Margie Rotor and Pat. Torrecampo, as to who really fired upon Atty. Celera, the Court is convinced that the testimony of Margie Rotor is more credible than that of Torrecampo because when witness Margie Rotor heard the gunfire, it was after she saw Pio Cantuba holding a gun while walking towards them. This court finds that the only competent persons to identify the person who fired the gun are the witnesses present at the scene of the crime. Witness Margie Rotor who was standing right beside the victim is more believable than Torrecampo who was standing across the street. When contradictory statements refer only to minor details, this does not destroy their credibility. Their inconsistency in minor details is proof that they were not rehearsed.
With respect to the sworn statement of Ricardo Baco claiming that it was Totong Labuyo who shot Atty. Celera remain hearsay evidence and, therefore, inadmissible since Baco was never presented to allow the prosecution to cross-examine him. Moreover, it was physically impossible for Baco to see who actually fire the gun because Baco went the opposite direction and encircled Rotor and the victim from behind. His eyes were fixed on the victim and not on the gunwielder who was at a distance from the victim.
It is well settled rule that when the main thrust of the appeal is that of the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution is assailed, and appellant failed to demonstrate why this court should depart from the cardinal principle that the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility should not be disturbed on appeal due to its superior advantage in observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying unless some fact or circumstance may have been overlooked that may affect the result of the case.
Anent the second assignment of error, it is the contention of the accused-appellant Pedrito Lalaguna that the lower court erred in convicting him despite the fact that the only evidence against him consisted solely of having been seen driving a motorbike away from the scene of the crime.
We do not agree with the appellant's claim that his participation in Atty. Celera's murder is tenuous because the records show otherwise. Both prosecution witnesses Margie Rotor and Romulo Tama testify to one motorbike or "tricycle" that was speeding at precisely the same time, i.e., immediately after Atty. Celera had fallen to the ground as a result of the gunshot and stab wounds.
Accussed-appellant Lalaguna points out that Margie Rotor did not testify against him. This statement is misleading. Margie Rotor testified against the rider of the speeding "tricycle" as a participant in the ambush because he was bent on running over the fallen Atty. Celera. The only element missing in her testimony is the identity of the rider because of the glare of the vehicle's lights. This however, was supplied by Romulo Tama who recognized the rider to be Pedrito Lalaguna, whom he had known even before the incident. Their testimonies as to the motorbike aspect of the incident corroborate each other. They both distinctly remember the noticeable speed of the vehicle and that it happened after Atty. Celera had fallen to the ground. By reason of their relative vantage points, this court finds each witness naturally recalling details which the other would not have noticed. This is indicative of credible and unadulterated testimony. Slight variations in the testimony of two witnesses strengthen their credibility (People v. Villamil, 135 SCRA 610).
Accused-appellant further calls the attention of this court to the fact that Pat. Torrecampo did not mention him (Pedrito Lalaguna) as among his companions when the former directed the killing. This court finds this fact not exculpatory.
It does not in any way contradict the testimonies of Margie Rotor and Romulo Tama that appellant Lalaguna was at the scene of the crime and tried to run down the victim. Appellant Lalaguna's identity and participation had been sufficiently established, and his motives become inconsequential (People v. Soriano, 134 SCRA 542).
The trial court correctly convicted appellant Lalaguna as a co-conspirator as the circumstances of his participation indubitably showed unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful acts as can be gleaned from the fact that, Lalaguna knew of the plot to assassinate Atty. Celera as he too had been ordered to scout for a man who could do the job (TSN, Sept. 3, 1985, pp. 355-356). He also knew exactly the place where the killing was to take place and also the date and approximate time of the assault. At the very least, therefore, he had to know about the Torrecampo plot and decided to join its execution. From the legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. (People v. Caday, 28 SCRA 388; People v. Sy, 113 SCRA 207)
Appellant Lalaguna insists that the act of driving a motorbike is an equivocal act. This would be correct only if the testimony of Romulo Tama were considered in isolation from the testimony of Margie Rotor, Pat. Torrecampo and Sgt. Rodolfo Arizala which clearly indicate that Lalaguna drove the vehicle to run down the victim and that he shared in the criminal intent to do away with Atty. Celera. Therefore, the criminal culpability of appellant Pedrito Lalaguna had been clearly established.
Relative to the last assigned error, the state has satisfactorily discharged its burden of proving the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Appellants' discussion of their third assignment of error seems to imply that the decision was premised on the weakness of the arguments and evidence for the defense. However, an unprejudiced reading of the decision and the points already discussed will readily show otherwise.
Be it noted that the questioned judgment tried very well to rebut the defense of alibi of Pio Cantuba and Pedrito Lalaguna. Appellants' defense of alibi is jurisprudentially weak (People v. Onquillano, 149 SCRA 442; People v. Acelajado, 148 SCRA 142). As they were not able to demonstrate by convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Moreover, the defense of alibi is generally accepted with caution, because under certain circumstances might exonerate the accused on the ground of impossibility of participation, or at the very least, raise a reasonable doubt. In the case at bar, both appellants claimed that on the night and time of the incident they were not at the vicinity of the Sunrise Disco Pub where the alleged crime was committed, as they were then in the house of Asst. Provincial Treasurer Manlapaz playing "pusoy". But considering the admitted fact that the distance between the house of Asst. Provincial Treasurer Manlapaz where the accused claimed to be, is only 300 meters away from the Sunrise Disco Pub, where the crime was perpetrated, there is no physical impossibility for both accused to be at the scene of the crime. Accordingly, such defense merits no serious consideration. Moreover, both accused were positively identified by prosecution witnesses Margie Rotor, Rodolfo Torrecampo and Romulo Tama. Accused Pio Cantuba, as the person who fired the gun and Pedrito Lalaguna, as the rider of the speeding motorbike or "tricycle" who was bent on running over the fallen body of Atty. Celera.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against the appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.
