G.R. No. L-11165; November 28, 1959
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE ELUMBA ET AL., defendants. ROQUE ELMEDULAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendants Roque Elmedulan, Felipe Elumba, and Cruz Alvarico were charged with murder for the death of Ladislao Olarte. Cruz Alvarico was tried separately, found guilty, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. After trial, Elumba and appellant Elmedulan were also found guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with orders to indemnify the heirs jointly with Alvarico. Only Elmedulan appealed.
The prosecution evidence established that on February 21, 1955, in Barrio Colambutan Bajo, Tudela, Misamis Occidental, while Olarte was tending his cows, Felipe Elumba, followed by Cruz Alvarico and appellant Roque Elmedulan, approached him from behind. Elumba struck Olarte on the head with a blunt instrument, rendering him unconscious. Appellant and Alvarico then joined in mauling him. The three carried the unconscious victim to Alvarico’s house. Appellant took Olarte’s bolo and inflicted two parallel slashes on his face, causing death. Elumba hacked the posts and stairs of the house, while appellant smeared blood on the floor and walls. Appellant instructed Alvarico to report to the police that he killed Olarte in self-defense during a house invasion, promising to cover legal expenses and provide money. Alvarico surrendered with the bloody bolo and initially claimed self-defense, leading to a homicide complaint later amended to murder against all three.
The motive was a land dispute between Elumba and Olarte. Appellant and Alvarico were Elumba’s close friends and had previously threatened Olarte. The prosecution’s case relied on the testimonies of Cruz Alvarico, Jorge Sericos, and Roel Olarte (the victim’s 10-year-old grandson).
Appellant set up an alibi, claiming he was at Bernardino Taylaran’s house from 10:30 a.m. to noon. This was partially corroborated by Taylaran but deemed worthless as Taylaran’s house was only a half-hour walk from the crime scene, and prosecution witnesses positively placed appellant there.
Appellant challenged the credibility of prosecution witnesses, particularly Alvarico, who had given conflicting statements. After the conviction, Alvarico made a deposition in prison admitting sole responsibility, which appellant used as grounds for a motion for new trial. The court found this deposition was not newly discovered evidence but a reiteration of his first affidavit.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding appellant Roque Elmedulan guilty of murder based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt appellant’s participation in the murder. The alibi defense was weak and disproven by positive identification. The physical evidence (the victim’s wounds, including a contused wound from a blunt instrument and facial slashes inflicted while prone, and the staged bloodstains and hack marks in Alvarico’s house) negated Alvarico’s initial claim of self-defense and corroborated the prosecution’s version of a plot involving all three accused. The testimonies of eyewitnesses Jorge Sericos and Roel Olarte, despite challenges to their credibility and perspective, were found credible and consistent with the physical facts. Alvarico’s post-conviction deposition was not a basis for a new trial. Appellant was a co-conspirator in the plot to kill Olarte and was penalized accordingly. The appealed judgment was affirmed.