People vs. Dorico

Conspiracy is not established by the mere fact that accused are relatives who acted with some degree of simultaneity; it must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself, requiring a showing of unity of purpose and unity in execution of the unlawful objective. Where one accused inflicts fatal stab wounds and another merely boxes the victim, the absence of prior concert renders each liable only for his own acts and their direct consequences.

Accused Romualdo Dorico and Fernando Dorico were brothers, and accused Dionisio Ballonico was their first cousin. All three, together with the deceased Gervacio Dapulag, were residents of barrio Makiwalo, Mondragon, Northern Samar. The killing occurred against a backdrop of a prior criminal charge: Gervacio Dapulag had insisted on the filing of a complaint against Romualdo Dorico for the killing of one Patrocinio Megenio on August 15, 1964, resulting in Criminal Case No. C-1511 pending before the Court of First Instance of Samar. This prior charge furnished the motive attributed to Romualdo for the fatal attack on Gervacio.

On October 12, 1964, at about five o'clock in the afternoon, Gervacio Dapulag was walking toward the store of Estropio Dorico in barrio Makiwalo, Mondragon, Northern Samar, on his way to the farm. His daughter, Rosa Dapulag, followed about thirty meters behind him, also headed to the farm to help graze their carabaos. Inside Estropio's store were Honorio Dorico (father of Romualdo and Fernando), Romualdo Dorico, Dionisio Ballonico, and Julio Cerenado, drinking liquor called "Mallorca." Alberto Uy, another eyewitness, was also inside the store buying cigarettes. According to Alberto Uy, he heard Honorio Dorico tell the group that it was Gervacio Dapulag who instigated the filing of the criminal charge against Romualdo for the killing of Patrocinio Megenio, at the same time pointing to Gervacio who was then approaching the store.

Thereafter, Romualdo and Dionisio went out of the store and accosted Gervacio. According to the prosecution, through the testimony of Rosa Dapulag, Romualdo immediately stabbed her father on the upper left arm, the wound penetrating the left armpit. When her father turned to see who stabbed him, Dionisio stabbed him on the left side of the back, the wound exiting on the abdomen. When the victim tried to run, he was met by Fernando Dorico coming from the nearby store of Castro Dorico, who hit him with his fist, causing him to fall to the ground. Romualdo then approached and hacked him on the knee. The three accused thereafter challenged everybody nearby. Alberto Uy's testimony corroborated Rosa's account, with the difference that he recalled Dionisio stabbing first, followed by Romualdo. The weapons used were bolos called "Depang." The autopsy report showed four stab wounds, two of which were penetrating and fatal, having hit the aortic arch and small intestines; the cause of death was shock from severe hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds.

For their part, the accused offered divergent defenses. Romualdo Dorico claimed self-defense: he testified that Gervacio called him out of the store, accused him of slashing his carabaos, then unsheathed his bolo and attacked; after parrying two blows, they grappled for the weapon, he wrested it away, and when Gervacio attempted to recover it, he stabbed him. Romualdo claimed he surrendered to Mayor Olimpio de Guia immediately after the incident, though the trial court found the police blotter showed he was arrested and did not surrender. Fernando Dorico raised alibi, testifying that he was at the beach buying fish at the time of the incident, corroborated by Agripino Calupo. Dionisio Ballonico admitted being present but denied any participation, claiming he was implicated only because he was a first cousin of the Doricos.

On October 13, 1964, all three accused were charged with murder. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Samar found all three guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, with the aggravating circumstance of superior strength, and sentenced each to death. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review of the death penalty.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses and Alibi of Fernando: Fernando Dorico argued that he had clearly established his whereabouts at the time of the incident through the testimony of Agripino Calupo, whom he met at the beach and with whom he returned to the barrio. He contended that the testimonies of Alberto Uy and Rosa Dapulag were unworthy of belief, noting that Uy did not report the incident to the authorities and that neither witness appeared in the list of witnesses in the criminal complaint, which he claimed was indicative of their absence from the scene.
• Self-Defense of Romualdo: Romualdo Dorico maintained that all elements of self-defense were satisfied — unlawful aggression by the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. He argued that the trial court erred in rejecting his claim on the grounds that he threw the weapon and sustained no scratch, asserting that post-incident stress explained his failure to surrender the weapon and that the law does not require the person defending himself to sustain injury.
• Non-Participation of Dionisio Ballonico: Dionisio maintained that his presence at the scene was purely incidental as a bystander, that there was no convincing evidence of his participation, and that he was implicated solely because of his relationship as a first cousin of the Doricos. He pointed to his protest to the Mayor and Chief of Police upon being charged as indicative of innocence.
• Absence of Conspiracy: The defense argued that conspiracy was not proved, asserting that the trial court erroneously inferred it from the familial relationship of the accused. Only Romualdo had a logical grievance against the victim arising from the prior criminal charge, and the command allegedly given by Honorio Dorico indicated the absence of prior concert of criminal design.

• Rejection of Alibi: The prosecution reiterated that alibi is the weakest defense, easily concocted, and must yield to positive identification by credible eyewitnesses. Fernando Dorico was positively identified by Alberto Uy and Rosa Dapulag as having been present and having boxed the victim.
• Justification for Witness Omissions: The prosecution justified the absence of sworn statements from Alberto Uy and Rosa Dapulag by noting that other witnesses — Francisco Dones and Purita Vicario — had executed affidavits for the preliminary investigation, and that no law requires that only persons who previously gave sworn statements may testify at trial.
• Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony: The prosecution relied on the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, noting that the lower court had the better opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and chose to credit the testimonies of Alberto Uy and Rosa Dapulag over the denials of the accused.

• Alibi and Witness Credibility: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting Fernando Dorico's defense of alibi and in giving credence to the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Alberto Uy and Rosa Dapulag.
• Self-Defense: Whether the trial court erred in not giving weight to the evidence showing that Romualdo Dorico acted in self-defense.
• Participation of Dionisio Ballonico: Whether Dionisio Ballonico participated in the killing of the victim.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy existed among the three accused in the commission of the crime.
• Conviction: Whether the accused were properly convicted of the crime charged.

• Alibi and Witness Credibility: No. The defense of alibi was properly rejected, the distance of 300 meters between the beach and the crime scene not precluding Fernando's presence, and the positive identification by two eyewitnesses prevailing over alibi. The omission of the witnesses' names from the information was not fatal, the Rules of Court permitting the prosecution to call witnesses other than those named in the complaint.
• Self-Defense: No. Self-defense was not established, the nature and location of the victim's wounds — inflicted from behind — being inconsistent with Romualdo's account of a frontal struggle, and his act of throwing away the weapon being inconsistent with self-defense.
• Participation of Dionisio Ballonico: Yes. Dionisio participated in the killing, his bare denial being insufficient to overcome the positive identification by two credible eyewitnesses. Proof of motive was not essential where the identity of the culprit was established.
• Conspiracy: No. Conspiracy was not proved as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself; the casual meeting of the accused, their familial relationship, and simultaneous acts were insufficient to establish prior concert of criminal design.
• Conviction: Modified. Romualdo and Dionisio were guilty of murder; Fernando was guilty only of slight physical injuries.

• Alibi and Witness Credibility: The defense of alibi must be received with utmost caution, being one of the weakest defenses, especially where there is direct eyewitness testimony duly corroborated. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused was elsewhere; it must likewise be shown that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. The testimony of Agripino Calupo established that the beach where Fernando claimed to be was only about 300 meters from the crime scene — a distance coverable in less than three minutes — thus not excluding the possibility of his presence at the killing. As for the omission of Alberto Uy and Rosa Dapulag from the list of witnesses in the information, the last paragraph of Section 1, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court expressly permits the prosecution to call at trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information. There being no law requiring that only persons who previously gave sworn statements may testify, the absence of such statements did not impair their credibility.

• Self-Defense: The elements of self-defense are unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. An accused invoking self-defense must prove his case clearly and convincingly, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's. Romualdo's account was belied by the physical evidence: the stab wound that went through the left arm and hit the chest below the left armpit, and the wound that went through the back to the front of the body, were both inflicted from behind — not from the front, as would be expected if the victim had lunged forward to grab the weapon. The wounds were deep stab wounds caused by a straightforward thrust, not slashing wounds. Furthermore, Romualdo's act of throwing away the weapon after the stabbing was inconsistent with the behavior of one who killed in self-defense. The trial court's observation that he sustained no scratch, while not alone dispositive, reinforced the conclusion that his account was implausible.

• Participation of Dionisio Ballonico: Dionisio's defense was a bare denial of participation, contradicted by the positive identification of two eyewitnesses — Alberto Uy and Rosa Dapulag — who testified that he was one of those who stabbed the deceased. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility was entitled to great weight, it having had the better opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor. His claim that he was implicated solely because of his relationship to the Doricos was refuted by the fact that other relatives present at the scene — Estropio Dorico and Castor Dorico — were not charged. Motive need not be proved where the identity of the culprit is established by credible witnesses; motive is pertinent only when there is doubt as to identity. No reason was shown why the prosecution witnesses would falsely implicate Dionisio.

• Conspiracy: Conspiracy requires unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective, and must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. Neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy. The record showed that the meeting of the accused with the victim was purely casual: Romualdo and Dionisio were inside the store drinking with Honorio Dorico when the victim happened to pass by. The command allegedly uttered by Honorio — "children, you kill that demon Gervacio Dapulag" — indicated the absence of prior concert, as obedience to a command does not necessarily show concert of design. The familial relationship of the accused and their simultaneous acts did not suffice. Accordingly, each accused was held liable only for his own acts: Romualdo and Dionisio, who inflicted the fatal stab wounds, were guilty of murder; Fernando, who merely boxed the victim on the ear, was guilty only of slight physical injuries.

• Alibi — Alibi is the weakest defense, easily concocted, and must be received with utmost caution. To prosper, it must be supported by strong and convincing evidence demonstrating not only that the accused was elsewhere but that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. In this case, the 300-meter distance between the beach and the crime scene did not satisfy the physical impossibility requirement.

• Self-Defense — The elements of self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The accused invoking self-defense must prove these elements clearly and convincingly, relying on the strength of his own evidence. Admission that the accused killed the victim shifts the burden of proof to the accused; failure to establish self-defense results in conviction.

• Conspiracy — Conspiracy requires unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective. It must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. Neither joint nor simultaneous action nor familial relationship is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy. Obedience to a command does not necessarily show concert of design. Where conspiracy is not established, each accused is liable only for his own acts.

• Motive — Motive is pertinent only when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit. Where the accused is positively identified by credible witnesses, proof of motive is not essential for conviction.

• "It is not enough to prove that defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed." — This passage states the established two-pronged requirement for the defense of alibi, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on alibi.

• "If Romualdo Dorico really stabbed the victim twice in the body when the victim is claimed to have lunged at him to grab the bolo, the latter would have been hit in front. But the stab wound that went through the left arm and hit the chest below the left armpit ... and the wound that went through the back to the front of the body ... were both inflicted from behind." — This passage illustrates the use of physical evidence — the nature and location of wounds — to disprove a claim of self-defense, demonstrating that the wounds were inconsistent with the accused's version of the encounter.

• "Neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself." — This passage articulates the standard of proof required for conspiracy, the controlling doctrine in the case.

• People vs. Portugueza, L-22604, July 31, 1967 — Followed. The Court cited this case for the proposition that although defendants are relatives and acted with some degree of simultaneity in attacking the victim, this fact alone does not prove conspiracy.
• People vs. Geronimo, G.R. No. L-35700, October 15, 1973 — Followed. Cited for the rule that conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself.
• People vs. Herila, L-32785, May 21, 1973 — Followed. Cited for the physical impossibility requirement of alibi and for the proposition that motive is not essential when the identity of the culprit is established.
• People vs. Palacio, L-13933, May 25, 1960 — Followed. Cited for the rule that the prosecution may call at trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information, pursuant to Rule 116 of the Rules of Court.
• People vs. Pelago, L-24884, August 31, 1968 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that throwing away the weapon after stabbing is not the behavior of one who killed in self-defense.
• People vs. Bautista, L-27638, November 28, 1969 — Followed. Cited in connection with the penalty of arresto menor for slight physical injuries.

• Section 1, Rule 116, Rules of Court — The last paragraph provides that the prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information. Applied to reject the argument that Alberto Uy and Rosa Dapulag could not testify because their names did not appear in the criminal complaint.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 248 (Murder) — Murder qualified by treachery (alevosia). Applied to convict Romualdo Dorico and Dionisio Ballonico, who inflicted the fatal stab wounds.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 266 (Slight Physical Injuries / Lesiones Leves) — Applied to convict Fernando Dorico, who merely boxed the victim on the ear, warranting only the penalty of arresto menor.

Makalintal, C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Makasiar, Fernandez, Muñoz Palma, and Aquino, JJ., concurred. Barredo, J., concurred in the result.