Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 91756 May 11, 1995 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAUL ESCOTO y GONZALES and DOMINADOR ESCOTO y CRUZ, accused. DOMINADOR ESCOTO y CRUZ, accused-appellant.

REGALADO, J.: ccused-appellant Do!inado" Escoto # C"u$ see%s the "eve"sal of his conviction fo" !u"de" handed do&n in C"i!inal Case No. '(-)*'+, of the Re-ional ."ial Cou"t of Manila, /"anch +), on Septe!be" ++, +0'0 &he"ein, inter alia, he &as sentenced to suffe" the penalt# of reclusion perpetua. 1 In said c"i!inal p"osecution, the People p"esented Mabina Cuales Vda. de .o"no &ho testified in the cou"t a quothat at about (1), P.M. on p"il +,, +0'(, the b"othe"s 2ilf"edo 342illie45 and Do!inado" 34O-ie45 Escoto a""ived at he" "esidence at 66)* M. 7i$on St"eet, Sta. C"u$ , Manila loo%in- fo" lf"ed .o"no, the elde" b"othe" of Robe"t .o"no &ho late" beca!e the victi! in this case. 2ilf"edo and Do!inado" de!anded to tal% to lf"ed but Mabina "efused the! ent"# into the house. .he Escoto b"othe"s &e"e the"eb# const"ained to leave but, befo"e depa"tin-, 2ilf"edo shouted, 4 lf"ed, do not -o out of that house alive. If I see #ou, I &ill %ill #ou.4 fte"&a"ds, 2ilf"edo and Do!inado" headed to&a"ds /atan-as St"eet &ith Mabina follo&in- the!. ! Still on M. 7i$on St"eet, and befo"e the# could "each the co"ne" of /atan-as St"eet, the Escoto b"othe"s chanced upon Robe"t .o"no &al%in- alone. 2ithout an# &a"nin-, 2ilf"edo and Do!inado" pu"sued Robe"t. fte" a b"ief chase, the# &e"e able to catch up &ith hi!. t this 8unctu"e, Mabina &as about ten !ete"s a&a# f"o! the p"ota-onists. " Suddenl#, Mabina sa& 2ilf"edo stab Robe"t on the left chest &ith a fan %nife. .hen, Do!inado" hi!self stabbed Robe"t. lthou-h Mabina could not tell the specific nu!be" of ti!es that Robe"t &as stabbed, she &as ce"tain that Do!inado" &as holdin- Robe"t &hen 2ilf"edo stabbed the latte". Robe"t the"eafte" collapsed and fell on the -"ound. # 9"o! afa", Mabina hea"d Raul Escoto, fathe" of Do!inado" and 2ilf"edo, shout to both his sons 4to "un if the# have al"ead# finished.4 t this point, Raul &as standin- in f"ont of Mabina:s house &hich is also about ten !ete"s a&a# f"o! the c"i!e scene. .he th"ee Escotos then "an a&a# in the sa!e di"ection. Mabina, alon- &ith a nephe& called 4.oto#,4 app"oached Robe"t to assist hi!, onl# to find out that he had al"ead# e;pi"ed. 4.oto#4 then called the police &ho b"ou-ht Robe"t to the !o"-ue. 5 <oseph Cal!a, a "esident of 66)6 M. 7i$on St"eet, Sta. C"u$, Manila, also too% the &itness stand and testified that at a"ound (1), that afte"noon, he &as standin- in f"ont of thei" house &hen he sa& Robe"t .o"no &al%in- alone. 7e also sa& 2ilf"edo and Do!inado" Escoto nea"b#. Initiall#, he

9 PEOPLE $ ESCOTO
thou-ht Do!inado" and Robe"t &e"e 4bo;in-4 each othe" but it tu"ned out late" that 2ilf"edo and Do!inado" &e"e stabbin- Robe"t. fte"&a"ds, <oseph sa& Robe"t fall to the -"ound. lthou-h he &as a"ound fift# !ete"s a&a# f"o! the scene of the incident, <oseph noticed that 2ilf"edo &as clutchin- a fan %nife. 7e also spotted Raul Escoto &ho &as b# then standin- about fift# !ete"s a&a# f"o! the locus delicti. 6 D". Ma"cial =. Cenido, !edico-le-al office" of the 2este"n Police Dist"ict, pe"fo"!ed an autops# on the late Robe"t .o"no and concluded that the latte" died of t&elve stab &ounds. 7 On he" pa"t, >eticia .o"no, !othe" of the deceased, testified that the fa!il# incu""ed e;penses conse?uent to the unti!el# death of he" son. She decla"ed that she paid P@,'0(.,, to the fune"al pa"lo", P*(,.,, fo" the t"ansfe" of the cadave" f"o! 9une"a"ia Popula" to 9une"a"ia O"o, and an undete"!ined a!ount to the -"ave-di--e" 34supulterero45. % On <ul# +A, +0'(, an info"!ation &as filed a-ainst Raul Escoto and Do!inado" Escoto as conspi"ato"s in the !u"de" of Robe"t .o"no # costa befo"e the Re-ional ."ial Cou"t of Manila, /"anch +). 9o" "easons that a"e not clea" in the "eco"ds of this case, 2ilf"edo Escoto &as not included in the info"!ation, no" does it appea" that a sepa"ate info"!ation &as subse?uentl# filed a-ainst hi!, p"esu!abl# because of the fact that at that ti!e he &as at la"-e. Dul# assisted b# counsel, both accused ente"ed a plea of not -uilt# &hen a""ai-ned on Septe!be" +', +0'(. 9 fte" t"ial on the !e"its, the lo&e" cou"t found Do!inado" Escoto -uilt# be#ond "easonable doubt of the c"i!e cha"-ed, i!posed on hi! the penalt# of reclusion perpetua, and o"de"ed hi! to pa# the hei"s of the deceased Robe"t .o"no the a!ount of P),,,,,.,, as death inde!nit# and P(,A@(.,, as "ei!bu"se!ent fo" the fune"al e;penses. ccused Raul Escoto &as ac?uitted. 1& In all the sta-es of the c"i!inal p"osecution, both Raul and Do!inado" Escoto "aised the fa!ilia" defense of denialcum alibi. Raul Escoto, an upholste"e", !aintained that on p"il +,, +0'(, he &as at his "esidence at -+,, Sau#o, Novaliches, Bue$on Cit# &he"e he &as bus# all da# t"#in- to finish a "ush o"de" f"o! Este" Ra!os &ho &as his custo!e". .o-ethe" &ith his son Do!inado", he sta"ted &o"%in- at '1,, .M. that da# and finished ea"l# in the evenin- the"eof. 11 Raul alle-ed that he onl# lea"ned f"o! Este" Ra!os in the !o"nin- afte" the stabbin- incident that he &as bein- i!plicated in the death of Robe"t .o"no. .&o &ee%s late", he &as 4 invited4 to shed li-ht on &hat he %ne& about the %illin- b# the .heft and 7o!icide Division, Police Station ( of the 2este"n Police Dist"ict. 1! Este" Ra!os, a nei-hbo" of the Escotos, too% the &itness stand on behalf of the accused. She clai!ed that in follo&in- up he" o"de" fo" the "epai" of a sofa and t&o a"!-chai"s, she &ent to Raul Escoto:s "esidence in Novaliches at about A1,, .M. On p"il +,, +0'( to in?ui"e if the sala set &as "ead# fo" delive"#. She lea"ned that Raul &as still &o"%in- on the sala set so she decided to co!e bac% late". 1" She th"ice "etu"ned late" in the da# onl# to find out that he" o"de" &as not #et finished. On he" thi"d t"ip at a"ound (1,, P.M., she beca!e i""itated &hen she lea"ned that the &o"% &as not co!pleted. Pleadin- fo" patience, Raul info"!ed he" that he and his son 4<in--<in-4 &e"e t"#in- ve"# ha"d to finish it. 9inall#, at about (1), in the afte"noon, Raul and his afo"esaid son delive"ed the sala set to he" house. dela 7e"nande$, a 4comadre4 of he"s, a""ived and in?ui"ed f"o! Raul if she could also have he" sala set "epai"ed. .his "esulted in an e;tended discussion of the !atte" until nine o:cloc% that evenin- &hen Raul decided to leave. 1#

On the othe" hand, he"ein appellant Do!inado" Escoto contended that at the ti!e of the incident he &as at his -"and!othe":s house in 4E!ison St., Sta. Mesa, Manila.4 7is -"and!othe" p"o!ised hi! so!e !one#, hence his visit to he" that da#. t about si; o" seven o:cloc% in the evenin-, he left fo" Novaliches. 2hen he a""ived at thei" "esidence, he sa& his fathe" 4fi;in- the set,4 obviousl# "efe""in- to the sala set of Este" Ra!os. 15 On the fo"e-oin- evidence adduced b# the pa"ties, this Cou"t finds no co!pellin- "easons to ove"tu"n the 8ud-!ent of conviction of the lo&e" cou"t. Mabina .o"no positivel# identified he"ein appellant, to-ethe" &ith his b"othe" 2ilf"edo, as the assailants "esponsible fo" the death of Robe"t .o"no. .his &itness &as onl# about ten !ete"s a&a# f"o! the c"i!e scene &hich &as clea"l# visible to he", so she had a -ood vie& of &hat "eall# t"anspi"ed. 16 .esti!onies of e#e&itnesses a"e -iven a!ple &ei-ht. 17 Positive identification p"evails ove" the si!ple denials of the accused o" his &itness fo" that !atte". 1% &itness &ho testifies in a cate-o"ical, st"ai-htfo"&a"d, spontaneous and f"an% !anne" and "e!ains consistent is a c"edible &itness. 19 No evidence &as advanced b# the defense to sho& an# ill !otive on the pa"t of Mabina to concoct the sto"# she "elated to the t"ial cou"t. .he fact that Mabina .o"no is a "elative of the deceased, instead of unde"!inin- he" "eliabilit#, even !a%es he" !o"e c"edible. "elative of the victi! has a natu"al %nac% in "e!e!be"in- the face of the assailant !& in o"de" to "ende" 8ustice to the deceased b# the conviction of the "eal culp"it. .he &ei-ht to be -iven to the testi!on# of a &itness possessin- inte-"it# and intelli-ence, &ho has no !otive to fab"icate facts and foist a ve"# se"ious c"i!e a-ainst an accusedC depends chiefl# on thei" obse"vation and !eans of %no&in- the facts testified to b# !1 the!. .he fo"e-oin- conside"ations obtain in favo" of the p"osecution &itnesses in the case at ba". Not&ithstandin- the pe"sistence of the defense in its atte!pt to p"ove that appellant could not have been p"esent at the ti!e of the pe"petuation of the c"i!e, the clai! of alibi is ne-ated b# the ve"# testi!onial evidence it has offe"ed in the cou"t belo&. .he inconsistent state!ents of the defense &itnesses the!selves have "esulted in thei" failu"e to "eali$e the ob8ective the# sou-ht to acco!plish the"eb#. Firstly, Raul:s atte!pt to -ive a c"edible alibi fo" Do!inado" p"oved to be futile. Raul see!ed unable to decide ho& to ans&e" the ?ue"# on &he"e Do!inado" &as on p"il +,, +0'(. t fi"st, &hen ?uestioned unde" di"ect e;a!ination as to &he"e Do!inado" &as, Raul "esponded, 4 ll I %no&, si", !# son Do!inado" &as &ith h3is5 lola at /lu!ent"itt because he &as livin- &ith h3is5 lola.4 3Co""ections and e!phasis supplied5. !! .hen, still unde" di"ect e;a!ination, Raul appa"entl# decided to chan-e his sto"# b# subse?uentl# statin- that on p"il +,, +0'(, he &o"%ed alone in his shop in Novaliches because Do!inado" &as in school ta%in- su!!e" classes. 7o&eve", &hen the !atte" &as p"obed fu"the", he could not state eithe" the na!e of the school o" even its location. !" Still "eite"atin- that Do!inado" did not help hi! that da#, Raul no& asse"ts that he sa& hi! in thei" house in Novaliches ea"l# in the !o"nin- of p"il +,, +0'( .Do!inado" &as alle-edl# still the"e afte" lunch, but Raul did not notice &hat ti!e he left. 7e &as su"e, ho&eve", that Do!inado" &as the"e 4&hile &e &e"e doin- so!ethin-4 !#p"esu!abl# "efe""in- to the 8ob o"de" of Este" Ra!os. Dnfo"tunatel# fo" hi!, this state!ent clea"l# unde"sco"es the fact that Do!inado" &as neithe" at his -"and!othe":s "esidence no" attendin- su!!e" classes in school on that fateful da#, thus co!pletel# cont"adictin- Raul:s p"evious asse"tions.

9u"the"!o"e, if &e a"e to follo& this latest ve"sion of Raul, then it can be infe""ed that Do!inado", althou-h p"esent in thei" "esidence, did not lend hi! a hand in his &o"%. 7o&eve", in an ea"lie" state!ent, Raul avo&ed that 4Do!inado" helped !e until I finished the "ush 8ob.4 !5 Secondly, althou-h the defense obviousl# hoped that Este" Ra!os &ould be a co""obo"ative &itness fo" Raul Escoto, he" testi!on# did not at all p"ove to be helpful fo" Do!inado". Ra!os testified that she &ent to the house of Raul seve"al ti!es on p"il +,, +0'( to follo& up the p"o-"ess of the &o"% bein- done on he" sala set. She sa& Raul and the latte":s son <onis 34<in-<in-45 &o"%in- on he" sala set, but she did not see Dominador . !6 7ence, &hile Raul:s ea"lie" asse"tion that a son of his helped hi! in his &o"% that da# &as co""obo"ated b# Ra!os, that son &as obviousl# not Do!inado". Thirdly, the -aps and fissu"es in the defense clai! of alibi &e"e fu"the" e;posed &hen appellant Do!inado" hi!self too% the &itness stand. s ea"lie" noted, Do!inado" actuall# clai!ed that at the ti!e of the !u"de", he &as at his -"and!othe":s house at /lu!ent"itt St"eet, nea" M. 7i$on St"eet. 7e sta#ed the"e f"o! si; to seven o:cloc% in the evenin- until he decided to leave fo" Novaliches. 7e a""ived at thei" house bet&een seven to ei-ht o:cloc% that evenin-. 7e alle-edl# sa& his fathe" 4fi;in- the set.4 !7 Ea"lie", ho&eve", Este" Ra!os had testified that bet&een (1), to A1,, P.M. of the sa!e da#, Raul and his son 4<in--<in-4 had al"ead# delive"ed that sala set to he" house. Raul then sta#ed at he" house until 01,, P.M. because dela 7e"nande$ a""ived and the# discussed a fu"nitu"e "epai" 8ob she also &anted to be done. !% It &as, the"efo"e, i!possible fo" appellant to have seen his fathe" 4fi;in- the set4 at about ei-ht o:cloc% that evenin- since at that ti!e, as affi"!ed b# Este" Ra!os, Raul &as in he" house conve"sin- &ith he" and 7e"nande$ afte" delive"in- that fu"nitu"e set !uch ea"lie" in the afte"noon. Eet, even libe"all# assu!in- arguendo that Do!inado" &as at his -"and!othe":s house at the ti!e of the incident, still it is not a le-all# sufficient alibi to &a""ant his ac?uittal. 7is -"and!othe":s house is 8ust a sho"t distance a&a# f"o! the c"i!e scene. In fact, his -"and!othe":s house is located nea" the sa!e st"eet &he"e the %illin- too% place. It is b# no& a stale and t"ite doct"ine &hich &e have to inte"!inabl# "eite"ate that fo" alibi to p"ospe", it is not enou-h to p"ove that appellant &as so!e&he"e else &hen the c"i!e &as co!!itted. It !ust li%e&ise be de!onst"ated that he &as also so fa" a&a# that he could not have been ph#sicall# p"esent at the place of the c"i!e o" its i!!ediate vicinit# at the ti!e of its co!!ission. !9 .he People havin- de!onst"ated be#ond "easonable doubt the culpabilit# of appellant, &hat no& conf"onts us is the app"eciation of the ci"cu!stances of t"eache"# and abuse of supe"io" st"en-th alle-ed b# the p"osecution in the indict!ent as eithe" ?ualif#in- o" a--"avatin- ci"cu!stances visa-vis the facts bo"ne out b# the evidence of "eco"d and the a"-u!ents the"eon of the p"osecution. .his Cou"t has ti!e and a-ain "eite"ated that ci"cu!stances &hich &ould ?ualif# the %illin- to !u"de" !ust be p"oved as indubitabl# as the c"i!e itself. On the ci"cu!stance of abuse of supe"io" st"en-th, to be applicable in a c"i!e it !ust be clea"l# sho&n that the"e &as delibe"ate intent on the pa"t of the !alefacto" to ta%e advanta-e the"eof. "& .o 8ustifiabl# app"eciate it, not onl# is it necessa"# to evaluate the ph#sical conditions of the p"ota-onists o" opposin- fo"ces and the a"!s o" ob8ects e!plo#ed b# both sides, but it is fu"the" necessa"# to anal#$e the incidents and episodes constitutin- the total develop!ent of the event. "1 ll that &e can -athe" f"o! the testi!on# of p"osecution &itness Mabina .o"no is that afte" thei" chance !eetin- &ith Robe"t and i!!ediatel# follo&in- a b"ief chase, Do!inado" and 2ilf"edo &e"e able to catch up &ith thei" victi!. Suddenl#, 2ilf"edo stabbed Robe"t on the chest and then

Do!inado" also %nifed the latte". lthou-h Mabina stated that 4 pinagtulungan na siya,4 #et, &hen as%ed to elabo"ate the"eon, she could onl# sa# that Do!inado" held Robe"t &hile 2ilf"edo &as stabbin- the latte". She could not tell &hethe" it &as a li!b o" the bod# of Robe"t and, co""espondin-l#, &hich one o" &hat pa"t Do!inado" &as actuall# holdin-, because at that ti!e she 4&as shoutin- fo" help.4 "! 7ence, f"o! the afo"e!entioned ch"onolo-# and "apidit# in the succession of events, &e can neithe" deduce no" conclude that indeed Do!inado" and 2ilf"edo delibe"atel# used thei" collective st"en-th in o"de" to ove"po&e" Robe"t and consu!!ate the felon#. .he s%etch# evidence of the p"osecution does not p"ovide sufficient basis to convince this Cou"t that the c"i!e &as co!!itted b# the offende"s b# intentionall# "el#in- on and abusin- o" ta%in- advanta-e of thei" co!bined supe"io" st"en-th. lso, the !e"e fact that one pe"son &as attac%ed b# t&o a--"esso"s does not constitute this a--"avatin- ci"cu!stance if the "elative ph#sical st"en-th of the pa"ties does not appea" of "eco"d. .he"e !ust be evidence that the accused &e"e ph#sicall# st"on-e" and abused such supe"io"it#. "" supe"io"it# of nu!be"s per se is not sufficient to b"in- the case &ithin the pu"vie& of this ?ualif#in- o" a--"avatin- ci"cu!stance. "# In addition, &e can neithe" conscientiousl# no" plausibl# su"!ise that Do!inado" hi!self &as a"!ed. lthou-h Mabina .o"no and <oseph Cal!a testified that 2ilf"edo had a fan %nife, neithe" of said &itnesses could sa# the sa!e &ith "e-a"d to Do!inado". 7ence, it &ould appea" that onl# one of the Escoto b"othe"s &as a"!ed as opposed to the una"!ed victi!. 2hile abuse of supe"io" st"en-th !a# be conside"ed &hen the"e is an ine?ualit# of co!pa"ative fo"ce bet&een the victi! and the a--"esso", the"e !ust nonetheless be a situation of st"en-th noto"iousl# selected o" ta%en advanta-e of b# hi! in the co!!ission of the c"i!e. "5 dd"essin- the ci"cu!stance of t"eache"#, a ca"eful evaluation of this case p"oduces the infe"ence that the sole dete"!inin- !otive fo" the c"i!e &as a !aulin- incident &hich happened the ni-ht befo"e the incident. .he advance "epo"t f"o! the Investi-ation Division of the 2este"n Police Dist"ict sho&ed that on the ni-ht p"io" to the %illin-, 2ilf"edo &as !auled b# co!panions of lf"ed. "6 Obviousl#, the Escoto b"othe"s &ent to M. 7i$on St"eet to conf"ont lf"ed about that incident but &hethe" o" not the Escoto b"othe"s &ent the"e to %ill lf"ed can onl# be a !atte" of speculation. /ut, one thin- is ce"tain F the# did not have the plan to %ill o" ha"! Robe"t, &hethe" p"io" to, du"in- o" i!!ediatel# afte" -oin- to that house. It &as onl# &hen the# une;pectedl# and fo"tuitousl# sa& Robe"t &al%in- alon- M. 7i$on St"eet, and the latte" "an a&a#, that the# decided to -et bac% at lf"ed th"ou-h Robe"t 9"o! the afo"e!entioned "ecital of facts and on &hich the"e is no dispute, alevosia is clea"l# &antin- and cannot be conside"ed in the case at ba". In People vs. Calinawan, "7 "eite"atinp"evious doct"ines, this Cou"t held that &he"e the !eetin- bet&een the accused and the victi! &as casual and the attac% &as done i!pulsivel#, the"e is no t"eache"# even if the attac% &as sudden and une;pected and &hile the victi! &as "unnin- a&a# &ith his bac% to&a"ds the accused. s has been aptl# obse"ved, the accused could not have !ade p"epa"ations fo" the attac%, the !eetin- bet&een hi! the deceased bein- casualC and the !eans, !ethod and fo"! of attac% could not the"etofo"e have been thou-ht of b# the accused, because the attac% &as i!pulsivel# done. "% 2e can not p"esu!e that t"eache"# &as p"esent !e"el# f"o! the fact that the attac% &as sudden. .he suddenness of an attac% does not, of itself, suffice to suppo"t a findin- of alevosia, even if the pu"pose &as to %ill, so lon- as the decision &as !ade all of a sudden and the victi!:s helpless position &as accidental. "9 In fact, f"o! the "eaction of Robe"t in "unnin--a&a# f"o! the Escoto b"othe"s the !o!ent he sa& the!, &e can "easonabl# conclude that he &as not co!pletel#

una&a"e that he"ein appellant and 2illie posed a dan-e" to hi! and this necessa"il# put hi! on -ua"d, &ith the oppo"tunit# to p"event o" "epel a possible assault. >astl#, althou-h the victi! sustained t&elve stab &ounds, so!e of the! located at his bac%, &e can not infe" f"o! this ph#sical evidence alone that t"eache"# &as initiall# p"esent in the case at ba". It is not clea" f"o! the testi!onies of Mabina and <oseph &hethe" o" not the attac% &as inceptivel# launched f"ontall# o" othe"&ise, o" at &hat sta-e of the fi-ht those &ounds at the victi!:s bac% &e"e inflicted. It is a funda!ental "ule of lon- standin- that fo" t"eache"# to be app"eciated, that ci"cu!stance !ust be p"esent at the inception of the attac% and, if absent and the attac% is continuous, t"eache"# at a subse?uent sta-e is not to be conside"ed. #& ll told, &e a"e fi"!l# convinced that appellant had co!!itted onl# the felon# of ho!icide since the alle-ations of eithe" abuse of supe"io" st"en-th o" t"eache"# have not been bo"ne out b# the evidence adduced b# the p"osecution. 9o" that !atte", neithe" can &e conside" the alle-ation of evident p"e!editation since the ve"# !ode of co!!ission of the offense, the bac%-"ound the"eof, and the !ista%e as to the intended and actual victi!s collectivel# "e8ect the possibilit# of its beinattendant in the c"i!e. 9o" that !atte", the p"osecution itself has not se"iousl# pu"sued this aspect of the case. 27ERE9ORE, the 8ud-!ent appealed f"o! is he"eb# MODI9IED b# convictin- accused-appellant Do!inado" Escoto # C"u$ of the c"i!e of ho!icide, and i!posin- upon hi! an indete"!inate sentence of ten 3+,5 #ea"s ofprision mayor, as !ini!u!, to seventeen 3+*5 #ea"s and fou" 3@5 !onths of reclusion temporal, as !a;i!u!. >i%e&ise, the death inde!nit# is he"eb# inc"eased to P(,,,,,.,, in acco"dance &ith cu""ent case la&. In ll othe" "espects, the 8ud-!ent of the cou"t a quo is 99IRMED. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C. ., Puno and !endo"a, ., concur.