G.R. No. 116280 May 21, 2001
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAQUITO DUMAYAN, accused-appellant. EDDIE DUMAYAN, ALLAN REAL and ROMY LOYOLA BERGARDO, accused.

FACTS

On February 1, 1992, in Malolos, Bulacan, accused-appellant Paquito Dumayan and his co-accused (Eddie Dumayan, Allan Real, and Romy Loyola Bergardo) were charged with Murder for the killing of Carlito Tamayo. The Information alleged conspiracy, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and treachery. Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution evidence established that at around 2:00 PM, the victim was at home when the four accused arrived. As the victim was about to climb the stairs, he was initially attacked. Eyewitness Anastacia Tamayo (the victim’s common-law wife) testified she heard the victim exclaim, “Aray! Bakit Pareng Eddie, wala naman akong kasalanan?” and then saw him, bloodied, being chased along the railway by the four accused. She saw appellant stab the victim at the back with an 18-inch bolo, while the others also stabbed him. Another eyewitness, Emilia Santos, corroborated the account, testifying she saw Eddie strike the victim first, after which the victim ran but was overtaken and stabbed by Allan, appellant (from behind), and Romy. The victim died from multiple stab wounds. Appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at work as a construction laborer in Atlag, Malolos, at the time of the incident, and presented a payroll sheet and testimonies from his supervisor and a neighbor to support this. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay indemnity. Appellant appealed, arguing the trial court erred in convicting him despite evidence showing he did not deliver the initial attack, in finding conspiracy, and in rejecting his defense.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant despite evidence that he did not deliver the initial attack.
2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant in the absence of evidence of conspiracy.
3. Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant despite his defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
1. The court held that the identity of the assailant who initiated the attack is not determinative of individual liability when conspiracy is established. The positive identification of appellant as one of the perpetrators by two eyewitnesses, whose testimonies were found clear and credible by the trial court, prevails over his denial and alibi.
2. The court found conspiracy was sufficiently established. The accused arrived together, acted in concert by simultaneously chasing and attacking the unarmed victim, and fled together after the stabbing. Their collective and coordinated actions demonstrated a community of criminal purpose.
3. The court rejected appellant’s defense of alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Appellant failed to meet this burden, as the construction site where he claimed to be working was in the same municipality, Malolos, Bulacan, and no evidence showed the distance made it impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the prosecution witnesses’ credibility over the defense evidence, which included an unreliable payroll sheet not prepared by the testifying witness.
The court modified the basis of the conviction, finding that the qualifying circumstances of abuse of superior strength and treachery were present, as the four armed men employed means that ensured the execution of the crime without risk to themselves from the defenseless victim. However, evident premeditation was not proven. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of civil indemnity were affirmed.