G.R. No. 172608 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BERNARD MAPALO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the accused BERNARD MAPALO is hereby found Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Further, the accused is ordered to pay the heirs of Manuel Piamonte the amount of Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred Pesos (P12,700.00) as actual damages. Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity for the death of Piamonte and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages. [38] The Ruling of the Court of Appeals Before the appellate court, appellant challenged the credibility of the prosecution's lone eyewitness. Appellant similarly assailed the ruling of the RTC on the ground that it erred in convicting him despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [39] The Court of Appeals found no adequate reason to disturb the findings of the RTC in weighing the testimony of Garcia. It did not find significant the alleged inconsistencies in Garcia's affidavits as executed before the investigating police and the prosecutor. [40] The appellate court did not accept the appellant's defense of alibi. The positive identification of the prosecution witness which was consistent and categorical, and shown to be without ill-motive, has discredited appellant's defense. The Court of Appeals, however, found reason to modify the findings of the RTC. It convicted the appellant of frustrated murder only. It was not convinced that the evidence on record established conspiracy among the appellant and his co-accused. The appellate court rationalized that while the evidence shows that Piamonte sustained stab wounds which caused his death, [41] the appellant was never identified as the one who inflicted the stab wounds on the deceased. According to the appellate court, the prosecution's evidence only established that the appellant clubbed Piamonte with a lead pipe. However, the prosecution's witness did not see the stabbing. He was not able to describe the particular acts which caused Piamonte's death. Hence, it cannot be inferred from the account of the witness that the appellant and his co-accused came to an agreement to commit a felony, or that they decided to commit the same, by concerted acts. [42] The Court of Appeals made the following observations: In the first place, the killing was the result of a fight that erupted suddenly during the Valentine dance, which discourages the conclusion that the killing was planned. Also, the witness did not see any stabbing. He did not see anyone else perform any act of stabbing or hitting, other than the appellant delivering blows with a lead pipe on the victim. There is no proof, therefore, of any concerted action or common design to kill the victim that could be the basis for a finding of conspiracy among several malefactors. Because of this, it could not be said that conspiracy was proven attendant beyond reasonable doubt. [43] In the absence of a conspiracy, the Court of Appeals said that the appellant could only b