G.R. No. 66873-74 May 8, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRUCTUOSO MANCAO, BENEDICTO MANCAO @ Amay, JOEL MANCAO @ Tiboy, FAUSTO REPONTE, PEDRO OPSIMAR and JUANCHO DECATORIA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On October 20, 1979, Artemio Pat and Lucy Lapira were married. That evening, while walking home single-file along a footpath near the appellants’ place, Artemio’s group was attacked. Marcelina Pat (Artemio’s mother) was ahead, followed by Lucy, then Artemio, and Melchor Isong. Appellant Fructuoso Mancao attacked Marcelina with a scythe, wounding her arm, while appellant Benedicto Mancao hacked her forehead and head with a bolo. Fructuoso declared, “We will kill you all.” Simultaneously, appellant Joel “Tiboy” Mancao hacked Artemio. They wrestled, and the other appellants (Fausto Reponte, Pedro Opsimar, and Juancho Decatoria) ganged up on Artemio using bolos, a scythe, a “chaco,” and a bow and arrow. Fausto Reponte shot Artemio with an arrow. Lucy and Melchor pulled the wounded Marcelina away and, fearing further attack, left Artemio’s lifeless body. Marcelina sustained hacked and incised wounds. Artemio’s post-mortem examination revealed seven stab and incised wounds, with death due to hypovolemic shock from massive blood loss. Appellants invoked self-defense and alibi, claiming the incident stemmed from a dispute over a fence Artemio destroyed. The trial court convicted Fructuoso and Benedicto of Frustrated Murder for attacking Marcelina and all six appellants of Murder for killing Artemio.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of Frustrated Murder and Murder, rejecting their defenses of self-defense and alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions with modification. It held that the defenses of alibi and self-defense were untenable. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witnesses Marcelina Pat and Melchor Isong, who knew the appellants as neighbors and saw them commit the crimes. For alibi to prosper, it must be physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene, which was not shown. The claim of self-defense by Fructuoso and Benedicto was unconvincing. The Court found it highly improbable that Artemio, just married and accompanied by his wife and mother, would initiate unlawful aggression. The nature and number of Artemio’s wounds, inflicted by different weapons, indicated a concerted attack by multiple persons, not a single defender. The trial court’s factual findings on witness credibility were accorded respect. However, the penalty for Fructuoso Mancao in the Murder case was modified. With the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty is one degree lower to reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum is within the maximum period of prision mayor and the maximum within the maximum period of reclusion temporal. The indemnity to Artemio’s heirs was increased to P50,000.00. The dispositive portion was modified to sentence Fructuoso Mancao to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum for Murder.