On July 9, 1995, the following information was filed in court against the brothers Mauro Andales and Benjamin Andales for the death of Edgar Ibarondo, who was shot with two others on May 16, 1985 at barangay Bagong Sirang, Municipality of Pili, Camarines Sur: ScslxÓ

The cases for multiple murder were ordered archived when the warrants of arrest could not be served. Benjamin Andales, herein accused-appellant, was finally arrested in 1993. His brother, Mauro Andales, still remains at large.

Benjamin Andales entered a plea of not guilty when arraigned.

The prosecution presented witnesses Ricky Canonico, who was riding with the victim Edgar Ibarondo when their truck was ambushed, Vicente Monte, who witnessed the shooting from the rooftop of his uncle’s house, Magno Lecreo, Sr., who saw the two accused firing at the truck and witnessed the shooting of Edgar by Benjamin Andales as the former was alighting from the truck and Martin Bueson, who met the two accused in the house of their father shortly after the shooting.

The combined testimonies of the said witnesses were summarized by the trial court as follows: Kycalrâ

The accused Benjamin Andales claimed he was innocent of the charge. He put up the defense of denial and alibi, claiming he was in Manila at the time of the shooting incident. He declared that he had been staying in Manila since March 1977, working at various jobs and was employed as vulcanizer at the shop of Domingo Salcedo from 1983 up to 1986. Benjamin Andales testified that he has no contact with his brother Mauro since 1979, and came to know that he was charged with the killing of Edgar Ibarondo only in June, 1993 when he went home to Sto. Niño, Iriga City to attend the wake of his father. He denied knowing Edgar Ibarondo.3 [Tsn., February 9, 1995.]

Benjamin’s defense was corroborated by Domingo Salcedo who testified that Benjamin was in his vulcanizing and welding shop on May 15, 16 and 17, 1993 and had no opportunity to leave the shop.4 [Tsn., December 12, 1994.]

The defense presented rebuttal witnesses Troadio Madara, Oscar Villanueva, and Ricky Canonico (who earlier testified for the prosecution) who testified on circumstantial matters that were intended to impeach the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

The prosecution thereafter presented its own set of rebuttal witnesses, namely Justiniano Repuesto, Felisa Doroin and Norma Matubis, to contradict the testimonies of the defense witnesses tending to establish the absence of Magno Lecreo and Vicente Monte at the scene of the shooting incident.

The defense again presented sur-rebuttal witnesses Marcelino Aladano, Jose Felices and Atty. Henry Briguera, essentially focusing on the presence or absence of prosecution witness Vicente Monte at Bagong Sirang, Pili, Camarines Sur on May 16, 1985.

The trial court rendered judgment on May 29, 1996 convicting Benjamin Andales on the basis of the testimonies of Vicente Monte, Martin Bueson and Magno Lecreo. The dispositive portion of the judgment read:

Benjamin Andales is now before this Court on appeal, claiming that the trial court erred as follows: Jksmä â Ó

Accused-Appellant prays for an acquittal.

Accused-appellant alleges that the trial court should have given credence to the testimony of Ricky Canonico, who testified both for the prosecution and for the defense, and who was the most credible witness, as he was not related to the accused-appellant nor to the victim. Accused-appellant points out that Canonico never identified the two persons riding in the motorcycle that followed the cargo truck which he was riding. Canonico also testified that he did not see any other person aside from his group, nor a carabao, within the immediate surrounding of the place where the shooting incident took place.

The accused-appellant also contends that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Monte, Lecreo and Bueson deserve scant consideration as none of them immediately informed the authorities about what they purportedly witnessed. Lecreo, in particular, simply continued attending to his farm in the afternoon, as if nothing happened. As regards the testimony of Monte that he saw the incident from the rooftop of his uncle’s house, rebuttal witnesses Madara and Villanueva categorically declared that the mango tree which he climbed to reach the roof was then "still too small in 1981", (as big as his [Madara’s] leg).7 [Tsn., September 28, 1994, p. 12, testimony of Troadio Madara; Tsn., December 2, 1994, p. 16, testimony of Oscar Villanueva.] EsmmÓ is

Accused-appellant also assails the court’s rejection of the defense of denial and alibi in light of his positive testimony that he was working in Manila on May 16, 1985 in the shop of Domingo Salcedo, who corroborated his testimony. It is pointed out that Salcedo is a duly commissioned officer of the military, and that the travel by land or sea from Metro Manila to Bicol takes at least nine hours; thus the impossibility of the presence of accused-appellant at the scene of the crime.

Vicente Monte’s presence at Bagong Sirang on the date in question which prosecution rebutted witness Norma Matubis8 [Tsn., July 10, 1995.] sought to establish by evidence of his enrollment in the school at Bagong Sirang, was controverted by Henry Briguera who secured a certification as to the proper official authorized to issue certification of school records of the students.9 [Exh. "7"; Tsn., December 13, 1995.]

Finally, the trial court’s conclusion that the accused-appellant "fled", is assailed in appellant’s brief. Accused-appellant was in Manila and only came to know of the fact that there was a warrant for his arrest when he went home to attend the interment of his father in 1993.

The appeal must fail.

We have examined with great care the evidence adduced by the prosecution and by the defense, and we are unable to find any cogent justification to overturn or set aside the conclusion of the trial court that based on "the entirety and totality of the evidence of the parties", the evidence of the prosecution has definitely established the guilt and culpability of the herein accused-appellant Benjamin Andales of the crime of murder beyond any reasonable doubt. The trial court gave full faith and credit to the declarations of the three prosecution witnesses, Vicente Monte, Martin Bueson and Magno Lecreo, whose testimonies "were given in a straightforward and credible manner" all positively identifying the accused-appellant and his brother Mauro as the persons on board a motorcycle which gave chase to the truck which Edgar Ibarondo and his laborers were riding in, and then firing at the occupants of the truck as they alighted therefrom.

Ricky Canonico declared in court that he was on top of the truck with one hundred cavans of palay, and that a few minutes after the truck left the house of Edgar Ibarondo, he saw a motorcycle with two persons riding on it; one of the person shot the tire causing the truck to stop. He went down the truck to hide and could not see outside the truck, which was "enclosed with walls", and was not able to recognize the two persons riding the motorcycle.10 [Tsn., January 17, 1994, at pp. 9; 25.] Vicente Monte supplied the deficiency when he declared in court that he recognized Mauro Andales and Benjamin Andales (whose brother is his close friend) as the two persons who were riding the motorcycle which followed the truck; he was then standing at the roadside after the truck passed by about three meters away, and he went up the roof of the house and saw the motorcycle following the truck, heard the gun shots, and saw the motorcycle return to the house. He went to the place where the truck stopped, saw Edgar and two others dead, and returned to tell Edgar’s wife and relatives.11 [Tsn., January 20, 1994.] He saw the person riding behind who carried a gun on the left shoulder alight from the motorcycle, and drew a sketch of the position where the truck originated and the place where it was riddled with bullets.12 [Exh. "1"; Tsn., January 24, 1994.] Earlier, he had heard Mauro Andales arguing with the deceased in the Iriga dialect and threatening the latter with harm, and he went to his uncle’s house after the motorcycle passed by "because (he) wanted to find out what will happen because of the utterances which (he) heard from Mauro".13 [Tsn., January 20, 1994, p. 13.] Esmsoâ

The identities of Mauro and Benjamin were established further by the testimony of Magno Lecreo who knew the two brothers because they are from the same barangay.14 [Tsn., February 8, 1994, p. 9.] Magno testified that he was 30 meters away from the truck, which was ascending from the spillway and he saw Benjamin Andales, who was in front of the truck shoot Edgar as the latter was alighting from the truck, using a long gun. Mauro was also in front of the truck firing shots.15 [At pp. 7-9.]

The wife of the deceased Amerinia Ibarondo, also testified that she saw her husband board the truck for Pili which was followed by Mauro and Benjamin; the latter armed a long gun on his shoulder. After she heard the gunshots , she saw the motorcycle return with the two accused.16 [Tsn., February 22, 1994, p. 22.]

We agree with the trial court that the participation of Benjamin Andales was convincingly established by the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses; the court stated:

The rebuttal evidence of the defense is far from conclusive. We find no basis for ruling that the court a quo erred in not relying on the witnesses presented by the defense to discredit the testimonies of Magno Lecreo and Vicente Monte, particularly on their presence or absence at the scene of the shooting incident that transpired on May 16, 1985. The defense attempted to show through witnesses Oscar Villamer and barangay captain Troadio Madara that Vicente Monte does not stay permanently in Bagong Sirang and was not there immediately before or after May 16, 198518 [Tsn., September 28, 1994, p. 8.] and that it would be difficult to climb the mango tree near the house of Elias Monte as it was still small and low in 198519 [At p. 13; Tsn., December 2, 1994, p. 16.] and that Magno Lecreo has a creek beside his house which never dried up.20 [Tsn., December 8, 1994, p. 13.] Oscar Villamer however admitted in court that "until now, Benjamin Andales is a very close friend."21 [Tsn., December 2, 1994, at p. 22.] For his part, Troadio Madara admitted that he had never gone to the roof of the house of Elias Monte, and that his nephew has a case against Magno Lecreo22 [Tsn., September 28, 1994 at pp. 33-34.] and that he was never in the vicinity of the place of the ambush at the spillway.23 [At p. 35.] Notably, the prosecution presented its own rebuttal witnesses, Justiniano Repuesto, Felisa Doroin and Norma Matubis, to establish that Vicente Monte was staying with his uncle Elias Monte at the time of the incident,24 [Tsn., May 18, 1995 at pp. 8-9; testimony of Felisa Doroin.] and was studying at the Calancaan Community School at Bagong Sirang from Grade I-VI,25 [Tsn., July 10, 1995, pp. 30-31; testimony of Norma Matubis.] and that the creek beside the farm of Magno Lecreo had no water in April and May because it is summer.26 [Tsn., May 16, 1995, p. 8; pp. 23-24.]

On the other hand, the court notes that the testimonies of the surrebuttal witnesses for the defense Marcelino Aladano27 [Tsn., October 16, 1995.] and Jose Felices28 [Tsn., November 27, 1995.] consisted merely of negative testimony, i.e. Marcelino Aladano testified that he did not notice Vicente Monte when Vicente purportedly went to the store of the son of Felisa Doroin to buy cigarettes.29 [At p. 5.] Jose Felices stated in court that Vicente Monte was not staying in the house of Elias Monte on May 16, 1985, and that he never saw Vicente in Bagong Sirang in 1985.30 [Tsn., November 27, 1998, at p. 10.]

We agree with the trial court’s finding on the contradictory testimonies regarding the supposed absence of Vicente Monte from the scene at Bagong Sirang at the time of the incident: ExÓ sm

We also affirm the trial court’s rejection of the defense of alibi in this wise:

Although the trial court’s observation that Domingo Salcedo was not even in uniform when he testified may be misplaced, the irreconcilable discrepancy between the testimony of Benjamin Andales that the vulcanizing shop of Salcedo was in Western Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila on May 16, 198533 [Tsn., February 9, 1995, at p. 23.] and that of Salcedo himself that his welding shop was located at Barangay Mayamot, Sumulong Highway, Mandaluyong, Rizal34 [Tsn., December 12, 1994, p. 30.] is a serious inconsistency that cannot be ignored and which discredits the defense of alibi.

The testimony of Ricky Canonico did not contradict the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. While he declared that he did not see any other person at the scene of the crime, he testified that he and his companions immediately ran away and fled from the place of the incident upon seeing the dead bodies of the victims, and he stated that he was scared and shocked and did not know what to do.35 [Tsn., February 17, 1994, p. 12.] The Solicitor General correctly noted in the appellee’s brief:

The contention of appellant that he did not flee from the crime is belied by the record. Appellant evaded the law for eight years despite numerous warrants issued for his arrest. His claim that he was not aware of the charge against him because he had no communication with his family is not believable, because he testified that he donated one of his kidneys to his brother Jose in 1986, and even stayed with him after the operation. We agree with the trial court that the flight of accused-appellant is indicative of guilt.37 [People vs. Reunir, 157 SCRA 686.]

In fine, we must stress that the core issue and peripheral matters raised by the accused-appellant in his brief involve the question of credibility of witnesses. The doctrinal rule is that findings of facts made by the trial court, which had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses, and to determine the probative value of other testimonies, are entitled to great weight and respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess the same, an opportunity not equally open to an appellate court.38 [People vs. Escandor, 265 SCRA 444.] We are satisfied from our own examination of the evidence that the trial court did not err in finding the accused guilty as charged. CalrkyÓ

The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death.39 [Art. 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R. A. 7659.] Contrary to the finding of the trial court that evident premeditation was proven no such aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime.40 [The requisites for evident premeditation are: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (2) an act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination, and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow himself to reflect upon the consequences of his act.40

Accordingly, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.41 [Article 63, Revised Penal Code.]

WHEREFORE, the judgment convicting Benjamin Andales of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, is AFFIRMED in toto.

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