G.R. No. 97170 December 10, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUDY MOSENDE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The victim, fifteen-year-old Carlo “Lelot” Alipao, was last seen alive by his mother, Gloria Alipao, in the late afternoon of September 18, 1986, leaving home with friends Jinky Mozol and Marlon Escuyos to visit Rudy Mosende. On the evening of the same day, witnesses Benceslao Resullar, Jr. and Fidelino Balaga, after drinking with Mosende, were taken to Mosende’s dilapidated shack. There, Mosende ordered them to dig a hole. Upon being directed to the shack’s toilet, they discovered the dead body of a male, with hands and feet bound and head encased in a sack. Mosende, threatening them with a bolo, compelled them to bury the corpse, whom he identified as Lelot Alipao, and threatened to kill them and their parents if they revealed the incident. The witnesses fled but later returned and reported to authorities after Mosende’s arrest in April 1987. The remains, identified by the mother through clothing and a dream leading her to the location, were exhumed on April 13, 1987, from the Mosende family lot. The autopsy revealed head injuries consistent with a heavy blow, causing intracranial hemorrhage. An information for murder was filed against Mosende, Mozol, and Escuyos. The trial court sustained a demurrer to evidence for Mozol and Escuyos, proceeding only against Mosende, who presented an alibi, claiming he was in Tubod due to a sprained foot. The trial court convicted Mosende of murder based on circumstantial evidence.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in accepting the amended information without re-arraignment.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not crediting a police blotter entry.
3. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on circumstantial evidence and rejecting his alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. First, the amendment to the information, which only added that the minor co-accused “acted with discernment,” was formal and caused no prejudice to Mosende, as it did not alter the charges against him; thus, it was permissible even after arraignment. Second, the police blotter entry, claiming the victim was missing as of September 17, 1986, was not entitled to full credit as it could be incomplete or inaccurate and did not substantially contradict the mother’s testimony. Third, the circumstantial evidence—comprising the witnesses’ account of being forced to bury the victim’s body, Mosende’s identification of the victim, his threats, the discovery of the remains at his shack, and his false leads to the mother—formed an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that Mosende was the perpetrator. His alibi was rejected as weak and unpersuasive against the positive evidence, and the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated as the victim was bound and defenseless when killed. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and awarded damages were affirmed.