Accused-appellant Cornelia Suelto alias Rogelia Suelto appeals from the judgment rendered by Branch 34 of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, in Criminal Case No. 10753 finding her guilty of the murder of Isabel Ruales.1 [Rollo, 35-45. Per Judge Rosendo B. Bandal, Jr.]

The information charging accused reads –

The prosecution’s case rests primarily on the testimony of two witnesses who claimed to have personally witnessed the killing. Â h Y

Milyn Ruales, who was nine years old when the killing occurred and a resident of Cancawas, San Jose, Negros Oriental, testified that in the afternoon of November 8, 1992 she was sent by her father on an errand to buy "calburo" at the town proper of San Jose, which is about a kilometer away from their residence. On her way home, she met Tomas Rama and his wife Doring on the road and they asked her to walk with them since they were headed in the same direction. At some point, a certain Peria joined their group. They decided to rest at a bamboo grove upon being invited to do so by accused who was already resting there together with a woman named Ansing Bacubac and her grandson, Lorenzo Bacubac. Shortly after, Isabel Ruales arrived at the grove. It was not long before the group decided to continue on their way home. Isabel Ruales borrowed the basket of Tomas Rama so that she could use it to carry the corn cereal she had bought. Isabel Ruales hung the basket which was about three feet in length upon her shoulder. Jksm

Initially, Milyn tried to keep pace with her companions, but since they were walking briskly, she was left lagging behind them. As she was walking behind accused and Isabel Ruales at a distance of about two meters, Milyn observed that the two spoke with each other in low tones, but she could not understand their conversation. Milyn also noticed that the face of accused was reddish. She testified that accused suddenly drew a knife from her waist, pushed aside the basket Isabel Ruales was carrying and stabbed the victim. The knife used by accused was about 8 to 10 inches long and 1 ½ inches in width. Accused stabbed the victim twice, first in the chest and then below the neck. Upon being stabbed, Isabel Ruales was able to utter a solitary shout for help. Milyn noticed that Tomas Rama, who was only a short distance ahead, turned to look back upon hearing the cry. Immediately after the stabbing took place, Milyn ran uphill towards her house. When she looked back, she saw the lifeless body of the victim sprawled on the ground.2 [TSN, June 13, 1994, 2-14; November 15, 1994, 6, 10.]

On cross-examination, Milyn declared that she and the victim Isabel Ruales were not related, but that she knew Isabel Ruales because the latter would visit their house.3 [TSN, August 19, 1994, 12.] She also testified that the first time she saw accused was on November 8, 1992, at the time of the stabbing incident. She was able to identify accused by the brown marks ("butibuti") or freckles ("talumtum") on her face and because accused appeared to have goiter.4 [Ibid., 4-5.]

Milyn Ruales’ testimony was corroborated in all material respects by the testimony of prosecution witness Tomas Rama, who was seventy years old at the time the incident took place and also a resident of Cancawas, San Jose, Negros Oriental. Tomas Rama testified that on November 8, 1992, at about past 2:00 in the afternoon, he and his wife Doring Rama5 [Also referred to as ‘Teodora." TSN, August 30, 1994, 3.] were on their way home to barangay Cancawas after buying some dried fish in the poblacion of San Jose. Along the way, they decided to take a rest underneath some bamboo trees. Already there were accused, whom Tomas Rama referred to as "Elli Suelto," Ansing Baucbac and Peria Bucubac. Tomas overheard accused telling her companions that her father-in-law was imprisoned because of a land conflict with Isabel Ruales. Milyn Ruales and Isabel Ruales arrived shortly after and the latter borrowed Tomas Rama’s basket to carry the corn she bought. After resting, the group continued their walk home. Tomas Rama and his wife were walking ahead of the others. He then heard Ansing and Peria Bacubac shout "Run." When he looked back, he saw accused stabbing the victim with a hunting knife.6 [TSN, August 30, 1994, 2-18; January 16, 1995, 16-18.]

Tomas Rama asserts that he knows accused, a resident of Inawasan, Pamplona, Negros Oriental, from the time she got married to Floro Suelto several years before the incident because the accused had lived with her in-laws in Cancawas, San Jose, Negros Oriental.7 [TSN, August 30, 1994, 18.] He also claims to be acquainted with the victim Isabel Ruales since he used to pass by her house in Cancawas.8 [TSN, January 16, 1995, 9.]

Dr. Bienvenida Palongpalong, municipal health officer of San Jose, Negros Oriental,9 [TSN, March 11, 1994, 3.] testified as to the cause of death of Isabel Ruales. In her post-mortem examination, she observed that the victim sustained five wounds,10 [Ibid., 6.] described as follows: Chief

Based on her examination,11 [Exhibit A.] Dr. Palongpalong concluded that Isabel Ruales died due to hemorrhage and multiple stab wounds.12 [TSN, March 11, 1994, 15; Exhibit C-2.] According to Dr. Palongpalong, the first three wounds were fatal since they penetrated the internal organs and perforated the lungs. In her expert opinion, the weapon most probably used by the assailant was a sharp, bladed instrument, like a knife.13 [TSN, March 11, 1994, 7-8, 11-13.]

Police officers Melanio Bacay and Edmund Tubac were presented by the prosecution to prove that accused eluded arrest after the commission of the crime. They tried to serve the warrant of arrest upon accused on December 19, 1992, but she was not to be found at her residence in Inawasan, Pamplona, Negros Oriental. Tubac, together with some local officials, succeeded in apprehending accused only on August 18, 1993 at sitio Manggilamon, Barangay Haklupan in Talisay, Cebu.14 [TSN, February 15, 1995, 2-25.]

Accused’s defense consists solely of an alibi. She claims that on November 8, 1992 she was at her home in Inawasan, Pamplona, Negros Oriental celebrating the birthday of her daughter Emerita. She asserts that it was impossible for her to have been at the scene of the crime because Inawasan is several kilometers away from San Jose. The testimonies of Carlito Catubig, Alberto Quibate, Floro Suelto, Emerita Suelto and the accused herself were offered by the defense in support of this alibi. Esm

On June 17, 1996, accused’s alibi was rejected by the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental. The dispositive portion of its decision states -

The accused is now before this Court seeking a reversal of the trial court’s judgment, claiming that the court a quo erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the two (2) alleged eye witnesses and in finding the herein accused-appellant guilt beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by treachery. In her appellant’s brief, the accused asserts that Milyn Ruales only testified due to the undue pressure exerted upon her by her mother, due to the prodding of the victim’s husband, Simeon Rulaes. The accused also claims that Tomas Rama’s inconsistent testimony pertaining to his identification of the accused cannot properly serve as a basis for a conviction.16 [Appellant’s Brief, 8-14.]

We sustain the trial court’s conviction of accused for the crime of murder.

First of all, accused’s alibi does not deserve credence. Basically, the defense’s theory is that the accused could not have stabbed Isabel Ruales at around 2 p.m. on November 8, 1992 in a road in Cancawas, San Jose, Negros Oriental because she spent the whole day at her house in Inawasan, Pamplona, Negros Oriental, with family and friends, celebrating the birthday of her daughter Emerita. However, the testimonies of the defense witnesses offered in support of this alibi were inconsistent and plainly contradictory,both in significant and minor details, whether considered separately or collectively. Esmmis

Defense witness Carlito Catubig testified that he was at the house of accused on November 8, 1992, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. in order to celebrate the birthday of accused’s child. On direct examination, he stated categorically that the only people in the house were accused, Floro Suelto and his own family.17 [TSN, April 24, 1995, 5-6] However, Carlito Catubig’s testimony was directly contradicted by that of defense witness Alberto Quibate, who claimed to also have been at the Suelto residence on the same date from 2 to 4 p.m.18 [TSN, April 27, 1995, 6.] According to Alberto Quibate, besides himself, those who attended Emerita’s birthday celebration were Teodulo Caladenia and his family, Felipe Teves and his family, and his own son, Nelson Quibate.19 [Ibid., 16.] Alberto Quibate expressly denied having even seen Carlito Catubig while he was at accused’s house.20 [Ibid., 18.] Alberto Quibate also appears to be an unreliable witness for, when asked on cross-examination, he could not even give the name of the birthday celebrant.21 [Ibid., 10-11.]

Floro Suelto, the husband of the accused, was also offered as a witness and, regretfully, his testimony proved to be the most damaging of all to the defense’s case. His testimony was self-contradictory and irreconcilable with the testimonies of the other defense witnesses. He began by asserting that his wife was in their house the entire day of November 8, 1992 celebrating the birthday of their daughter Emerita.22 [May 17, 1995, 11-12, 14.] However, while still on direct examination, he subsequently claimed that he and his wife were in Cebu. The transcripts of stenographic notes attests to his evasive and incongruous answers -

Apparently, Floro Suelto could not make up his mind as to the exact whereabouts of himself and of accused on November 8, 1992. Earlier, he had even testified that it was in August, 1993 that they went to Cebu upon learning of the death of their grandchild.24 [TSN, May 17, 1995, 15; June 5, 1995, 27.] Other parts of Floro Suelto’s testimony were similarly shifty and confused. He could not even give a categorical pronouncement as to the exact date when the Sueltos allegedly celebrated the birthday of Emerita, a fact which was crucial to the defense. While Carlito Catubig, Alberto Quibate and accused all testified that it was on November 8, 1992 that they celebrated the birthday of accused’s child, Floro Suelto declared several times that it was on November 26 that they held a party for Emerita, and not on November 8.25 [TSN, June 5, 1995, 8-12.] Also, Floro Suelto’s testimony regarding the guests at Emerita’s birthday contradicted the testimonies of the other witnesses for the defense.26 [TSN, May 17, 1995, 13.]

Despite the wavering and unreliable testimony given by her husband, accused still maintained that she was at her home in Inawasan, Pamplona, Negros Oriental the entire day of November 8, 1992, celebrating the birthday of her daughter Emerita.27 [Ibid., 3.]

Accused made an effort to conceal her true identity by claiming that she has never been known by any other name except for "Rogelia Suelto,"28 [TSN, June 22, 1995, 4.] contrary to the claims of prosecution witness Tomas Rama that accused also goes by the name "Elli Suelto." However, accused’s claims that Tomas Rama was not able to positively identify her were belied by her own testimony. Although she asserts that the first time she met Tomas Rama was at the trial of this case, she nevertheless admitted that he was present at her wedding and even spoke to her parents-in-law.29 [Ibid., 12-13.] When questioned as to the possible reason why Tomas Rama would point to her as the perpetrator of the crime when in fact they had never even met before the trial, accused declared that it was because she put up a bail bond for her parents-in-law who were incarcerated due to a complaint for qualified theft filed by the victim against them.30 [Ibid., 14.] Accused testified that she put up a bail bond for her parents-in-law on November 9, 1992.31 [TSN, June 23, 1995, 8.] Obviously, by testifying thus, accused impliedly admitted that Tomas Rama is in fact acquainted with her and her husband’s family. Esmso

Alibis are generally considered with suspicion and are always received with caution, not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable, but also because they can be easily fabricated.32 [People v. Tulop, 289 SCRA 316 (1998).] Therefore, for alibi to serve as a basis for acquittal, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) that it would thus be physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.33 [People v. Balmoria, 287 SCRA 687 (1998); People v. Ravanes, 284 SCRA 634 (1998).] Furthermore, the alibi must receive credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses.

We hold that accused has failed to establish her alibi by clear and convincing evidence. No credence could be properly accorded to the testimonies of the witnesses for the defense, which were inconsistent and plainly contradictory on material points, not to mention that said witnesses were all family and friends of the accused. Accordingly, the alibi of the accused is reduced to self-serving evidence undeserving of any weight in law.

The positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime by the prosecution witnesses, absent any showing of ill motive, must prevail over the weak and obviously fabricated alibi of accused.34 [People v. Andres, 296 SCRA 318 (1998); People v. Enriquez, 292 SCRA 656 (1998).] Based on a thorough and careful perusal of the transcripts, we note that the testimonies of Milyn Ruales and Toms Rama, both eye witnesses to the crime, were candid, straightforward, and consistent in all crucial points, thus, deserving of belief. Furthermore, the weight and credence accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, being factual findings of the trial court, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. It is well-settled that the trial court is in a much better position than an appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence, such as observing directly the witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying.35 [People v. Grefaldia, 298 SCRA 337 (1998).]

The motive of accused for killing Isabel Ruales was provided by Floro Suelto and accused herself. They testified that Isabel Ruales, who is the first cousin of Alfredo Suelto, accused’s father-in-law, filed a case for qualified theft against Alfredo Suelto and his wife, resulting in their incarceration. On November 9, 1992, one day after the killing of Isabel Ruales, Floro Suelto and his wife put up a bail bond for their temporary liberty.36 [TSN, June 5, 1995, 4-6; June 22, 1995, 14-15.] Accused even admitted that her parents-in-law were enemies of Isabel Ruales.37 [TSN, June 22, 1995, 14.]

The trial court found that the killing of Isabel Ruales by accused was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.38 [Rollo, 44-45.] Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms which tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.39 [People v. Gungon, 287 SCRA 618 (1998).]

Milyn Ruales, who was about 2 meters away from the accused and the victim at the time of the stabbing, testified as follows: Msesm

xxx xxx xxx

It is apparent to us that the means employed by accused in killing Isabel Ruales did not afford the latter any opportunity to defend herself. The attack was sudden and unexpected. The victim and the accused were having a casual conversation when accused suddenly stabbed Isabel Rulaes. There was no quarrel or argument which could have warned the victim of the impending attack.41 [People v. Lapay, 298 SCRA 62 (1998).] In fact, prior to the stabbing incident, the two were peacefully resting in the same bamboo grove and did not even speak. Exsm

Moreover, Milyn Ruales also testified that the knife used by accused was hidden from view.42 [TSN, August 19, 1994, 17; November 15, 1994, 34,36-37.] Thus, Isabel Ruales was not prepared for such a violent attack, especially considering that, at the time, she was unarmed and was burdened with a large basket filled with about six kilos of corn and dried fish hanging from her shoulders and thus, could not have possibly warded off the blow or run away from her assailant.43 [TSN, August 19, 1994, 15-16.] Although Milyn Ruales described the attack as having been frontal, this does not negate treachery since the essence of treachery is the suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or offer any defense of his person.44 [People v. Aranjuez, 285 SCRA 466 (1998).] Thus, we hold that the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Kyle

We uphold the trial court’s finding that the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was not sufficiently established. This circumstance qualifies killing to murder if the following elements are proven: (1) the time when the offender determined to kill his victim; (2) an act of the offender manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination to kill his victim; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution of the killing to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act.45 [People v. Timblor, 285 SCRA 64 (1998).] The prosecution did not adduce any evidence to prove these elements. Kycalr

We cannot sustain the trial court’s award of actual damages in the amount of P10,000 for burial expenses. To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.46 [People v. Oliano, 287 SCRA 158 (1998).] The prosecution was not able to present any receipts to prove their allegation that Simeon Ruales spent at least P10,000 for the burial of his wife. Calrky

However, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we uphold the award of P50,000 as indemnity for the victim’s untimely death and order the increase of the award of moral damages to P50,000.47 [People v. Gutierrez, 302 SCRA 643 (1999); People v. Reyes, 287 SCRA 229 (1998); People v. Aringue, 283 SCRA 291 (1997).]

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that the award of actual damages is DELETED and the award of moral damages is INCREASED to P50,000. Mesm

No pronouncement as to costs. Slx

Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur.