658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED People vx. Contanta the appellant ws sue foreman, he continued Lo work Garehitorena In due time, the Camarines Sur Philippine Constabulary looked for and located the appellant in Manes Flatively distant barrio from Panagan. He was then taken into euse tody and brought to the Philippine Constabulary headquart- fers where he was interrogated the following day. At the PC investigation, his statements were taken in question. and-anewer method, He freely owned the evime and ad mitted that he earied it out at the inducement of Tomas Garchitorens and in considertion of monetary reward. ‘Tho records do not suggest any irregularity in that proceeding ‘The inquest was conducted in the office of PC Lieutenant Piniones near the Southern Luzon Colleges, in the presence ‘of x mumber of soldiers and, except for the usual agitation ff one being grille, the appellant appeared normal during the entire question and ansrer period, As a matter of fact, the appellant truthfully pointed to where he threw away. the shotgun for the PC recovered it in the thick grass of Orin, Tigaon as he indicated. Ballistic tests conelusively cstablished it a8 the fatal weapon. At the end ofthe investigation, the appellant was brought to the Deputy Clerk of Court of Naga City before wom he freely and voluntarily signed the statements he gave at the PC headquarters, “Refore affixing his signature, an employee in the eid office translated for him in hie ver racular the contents of the document. Too, the Deputy Clerk o€ Court administered the oath and subscription only after he had satistied himself of the appellant’ fre dispo sition on the matter. Thereafter followed a reenactment by the appellant of the shooting during which he demons: ‘ated the litle details that attended the commission of the crime, The re-nactment was witnessed by a PC captain, some soldiers, the Provincial Fiseal and the widow Luz Rodrigues. Photographs of the reenactment were likewise taken. The defense was alibl, At the trial, the appellant offered toro witnesses, Pedro Relleda and Segismundo Alvarez, who testified having seen the appellant, on the might of the shoot VOL. 12, DECEMBER 28, 1964 659 eapleve. Contant ing, at 0 gathering in Maangss, Lagonoy. Maangas ig a Dario separated from Panagan by a two-hour boat ride ‘and a short bus trip. In the premises and consistently with the defense of alibi, the appellant offered evidence impeach- ing the testimony ‘of Marciano Adsyo. It should be re callgd that Marciano Adayo was’ the prosecution wit es who avore having seen the appellant running may the scene ofthe erime carrying & shotgun. ‘To discrgit him, the appellant presented a number of witnesses who claimed to have seen Marciano far from Panagan at approx: ‘mately the time that the murder was committed. ‘Thus, Aefense witness Teodoro Alcoba claimed that he was one ‘of the neighbors who ran to the Adayo house in response to the cries for help of Luz Rodrigues. He declared th ‘Marciano was never among those who eame. Another wit- ness, Faustino Banguio, declared that Marciano could not have been in Panagan when the ineident occurned beeause at more o less that time, he saw Marciano in Mabaludbalud. Finally, there was one Eligio Dacaco whose testimony was to the effect that at about 6:00 oelock in the evening of the day in question, he and Marciano were together on bus {or Anawan Consistently too, with the defense of alibi, the appeltant repudiated the extrajudicial eonfesion he previously exe- cuted, charging that his signature thereon was secured by force and duress. After trial, the lower court found the appellant ity beyond reasonable doubt “of the ime of murder qualified by treachery and with the attendance of the aggravating circumstances of price and dwelling.” In this appeal, counsel for the appellant prays for the ‘review of the judgment on those to points, namely: First, the lower court's finding that alibi was not auffilently ‘stablished and, second, that the circumstantial evidence Presented on the ease warrant a conviction, The determination of whether or not alibi as a defense ‘has been sufficiently established is eaeentially an igue of fact, ‘The reason is because by its very nature, all is ee- tablished by the testimony cf witnesses ‘who vou