Accused-appellants seek the reversal of the decision1 [Rollo, pp. 32 - 51.] dated November 7, 1995, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Santa Cruz, Laguna, in Criminal Case Nos. SC-4810, 4811 and 4812, finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of double murder and attempted murder, and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, payment of P50,000.00 for indemnity, P14,000.00 for burial expenses and P619,800.00 for loss of earning capacity in Crim. Case SC-4810 for the death of Emerita Roma; reclusion perpetua, payment of P50,000.00 as indemnity, P14,000.00 for burial expenses and P470,232.00 for loss of earning capacity for the death of Ireneo Gallarte in Crim. Case SC-4811; and imprisonment from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor and payment of P15,000.00 to Flor Espinas for injuries sustained in Crim. Case SC-4812.

On February 26, 1993, Prosecution Attorney Joselito D.R. Obejas filed three separate informations charging appellants as follows:

During arraignment, both appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial thereafter ensued. Resolving jointly Criminal Cases Nos. SC-4810, SC-4811 and SC-4812, the trial court convicted both appellants for the murder of Emerita Roma and Ireneo Gallarte, and the attempted murder of Flor Espinas. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

The facts of the case, borne out by the records, are as follows:

Days before the incident, appellant Hermogenes Flora alias "Bodoy," had a violent altercation with a certain Oscar Villanueva. Oscar’s uncle, Ireneo Gallarte, pacified the two.

On the evening of January 9, 1993, a dance party was held to celebrate the birthday of Jeng-jeng Malubago in Sitio Silab, Barangay Longos, Kalayaan, Laguna. Appellant Hermogenes Flora, allegedly a suitor of Jeng-jeng Malubago, attended the party with his brother and co-appellant Edwin Flora, alias "Boboy". Also in attendance were Rosalie Roma, then a high school student; her mother, Emerita Roma, and her aunt, Flor Espinas. Ireneo Gallarte, a neighbor of the Romas, was there too.

The dancing went on past midnight but at about 1:30, violence erupted. On signal by Edwin Flora, Hermogenes Flora fired his .38 caliber revolver twice. The first shot grazed the right shoulder of Flor Espinas, then hit Emerita Roma, below her shoulder. The second shot hit Ireneo Gallarte who slumped onto the floor. Rosalie, was shocked and could only utter, "si Bodoy, si Bodoy", referring to Hermogenes Flora. Edwin Flora approached her and, poking a knife at her neck, threatened to kill her before he and his brother, Hermogenes, fled the scene.

The victims of the gunfire were transported to the Rural Health Unit in Longos, Kalayaan, Laguna, where Emerita and Ireneo died.6 [TSN, February 1, 1995, pp. 14-15; Records, pp. 2-3.]

Early that same morning of January 10, 1993, the police arrested Edwin Flora at his rented house in Barangay Bagumbayan, Paete, Laguna. Hermogenes Flora, after learning of the arrest of his brother, proceeded first to the house of his aunt, Erlinda Pangan, in Pangil, Laguna but later that day, he fled to his hometown in Pipian, San Fernando, Camarines Sur.

The autopsy conducted by the medico-legal officer, Dr. Ricardo R. Yambot, Jr., revealed the following fatal wounds sustained by the deceased:

Flor Espinas submitted herself to a medical examination by Dr. Dennis Coronado. Her medical certificate 9 [Records, SC-4812, p. 5.] disclosed that she sustained a gunshot wound, point of entry, 2 x 1 cm. right supra scapular area mid scapular line (+) contusion collar; and another gunshot wound with point of exit 1 x 1 cm. right deltoid area.

Three criminal charges were filed against the Flora brothers, Hermogenes and Edwin, before Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. During the trial, the prosecution presented two eyewitnesses, namely, (1) Rosalie Roma, daughter of one of the victims, Emerita Roma, and (2) Flor Espinas, the injured victim. Rosalie narrated the treacherous and injurious attack by Hermogenes Flora against the victims. Flor detailed how she was shot by him.

Felipe Roma, the husband of Emerita, testified that his wife was forty-nine (49) years old at the time of her death and was a paper mache maker, earning an average of one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos a week. He claimed that his family incurred fourteen thousand (P14,000.00) pesos as expenses for her wake and burial.

Ireneo Gallarte’s widow, Matiniana, testified that her husband was fifty-two (52) years old, a carpenter and a substitute farmer earning one hundred (P100.00) to two hundred (P200.00) pesos a day. Her family spent fourteen thousand (P14,000.00) pesos for his wake and burial.

The defense presented appellants Hermogenes and Edwin Flora, and Imelda Madera, the common-law wife of Edwin. Appellants interposed alibi as their defense, summarized as follows:

x x x

Madera corroborated the testimony of her husband.12 [TSN, January 18, 1995, pp. 2-13.]

As earlier stated, the trial court convicted accused-appellants of the crime of double murder and attempted murder. Appellants now raise this sole assigned error:

At the outset, it may be noted that the trial court found both appellants have been positively identified. However, they challenge the court’s finding that they failed to prove their alibi because they did not establish that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the crime scene. According to the trial court, by Hermogenes’ own admission, the house of his sister Shirley, where appellants were allegedly sleeping, was only one (1) kilometer away from Sitio Silab, where the offenses allegedly took place. The sole issue here, in our view, concerns only the plausibility of the appellants’ alibi and the credibility of the witnesses who identified them as the perpetrators of the crimes charged.

For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused establish two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed, and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission.13 [People vs. Batulan, 253 SCRA 52, 53 (1996)] The defense of alibi and the usual corroboration thereof are disfavored in law since both could be very easily contrived.14 [People vs. De Castro, 252 SCRA 341, 352 (1996)] In the present case, appellants’ alibi is patently self-serving. Although Edwin’s testimony was corroborated by his common-law wife, it is ineffectual against the positive testimonies of eyewitnesses and surviving victims who contradicted his alibi. Moreover, an alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is invoked and sought to be crafted mainly by the accused himself and his immediate relative or relatives.15 [People vs. Danao, 253 SCRA 146, 147 (1996)] Appellants’ defense of alibi should have been corroborated by a disinterested but credible witness.16 [People vs. Fabrigas Jr., 261 SCRA 436, 437 (1996)] Said uncorroborated alibi crumbles in the face of positive identification made by eyewitnesses.17 [People vs. Ferrer, 255 SCRA 19, 35 (1996)]

In their bid for acquittal, appellants contend that they were not categorically and clearly identified by the witnesses of the prosecution. They claim that the testimonies of the said witnesses were not entitled to credence. They assail the credibility of two eyewitnesses, namely Rosalie Roma and Flor Espinas, because of the alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies. For instance, according to appellants, Rosalie Roma testified she was in the dance hall when the gunshots were heard, and that she was dancing in the middle of the dance hall when Hermogenes shot Emerita Roma, Ireneo Gallarte and Flor Espinas,

However, to a similar question, later in her testimony, she replied,

On this issue, we do not find any inconsistency that impairs her credibility or renders her entire testimony worthless. Nothing here erodes the effectiveness of the prosecution evidence. What counts is the witnesses’ admitted proximity to the appellants. Was she close enough to see clearly what the assailant was doing? If so, is there room for doubt concerning the accuracy of her identification of appellant as one of the malefactors?

Appellants argue that since the attention of witness Flor Espinas was focused on the dance floor, it was improbable for her to have seen the assailant commit the crimes. On cross-examination, said witness testified that while it was true she was watching the people on the dance floor, nonetheless, she also looked around (gumagala) and occasionally looked behind her and she saw both appellants who were known to her.20 [TSN, July 19, 1993, pp. 15-16.] Contrary to appellants’ contention that Flor did not have a sufficient view to identify the assailants, the trial court concluded that Flor was in a position to say who were in the party and to observe what was going on. On this point, we concur with the trial court.

Well-settled is the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve respect, for it had the opportunity to observe first-hand the deportment of witnesses during trial.21 [People vs. Ramos, 240 SCRA 191, 192 (1995)] Furthermore, minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of witnesses, as they may even tend to strengthen rather than weaken their credibility.22 [People vs. Lorenzo, 240 SCRA 624, 626 (1995)] Inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony.23 [People vs. Nicolas, 241 SCRA 67, 68 (1995)] Such minor flaws may even enhance the worth of a testimony, for they guard against memorized falsities.

Appellants assert that Flor Espinas and Rosalie Roma were biased because they are relatives of the victim Emerita Roma. However, unless there is a showing of improper motive on the part of the witnesses for testifying against the accused, the fact that they are related to the victim does not render their clear and positive testimony less worthy of credit. On the contrary, their natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating other persons other than the culprits, for otherwise, the latter would thereby gain immunity.24 [People vs. Alcantara, 33 SCRA 812, 821 (1970)]

Here, appellants did not present any proof of improper motive on the part of the eyewitnesses in pointing to the Flora brothers as the perpetrators of the crime. There is no history of animosity between them. Emerita Roma and Flor Espinas were merely innocent bystanders when hit by gunfire. Where eyewitnesses had no grudge against the accused, their testimony is credible.25 [People vs. Asil, 141 SCRA 286, 288 (1986)] In the absence of ulterior motive, mere relationship of witnesses to the victim does not discredit their testimony.26 [People vs. Radomes, 141 SCRA 548, 549 (1986)]

Coming now to the criminal responsibility of appellants. In the present case, when Hermogenes Flora first fired his gun at Ireneo, but missed, and hit Emerita Roma and Flor Espinas instead, he became liable for Emerita’s death and Flor’s injuries. Hermogenes cannot escape culpability on the basis of aberratio ictus principle. Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended.27 [Revised Penal Code, Art. 4.]

We find that the death of Emerita and of Ireneo were attended by treachery. In order for treachery to exist, two conditions must concur namely: (1) the employment of means, methods or manner of execution which would ensure the offender’s safety from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the offended party; and (2) such means, method or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously chosen by the offender.28 [People vs. Estillore, 141 SCRA 456, 460 (1986)] When Hermogenes Flora suddenly shot Emerita and Ireneo, both were helpless to defend themselves. Their deaths were murders, not simply homicides since the acts were qualified by treachery. Thus, we are compelled to conclude that appellant Hermogenes Flora is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of double murder for the deaths of Emerita Roma and Ireneo Gallarte, and guilty of attempted murder of Flor Espinas.

Is the other appellant, Edwin Flora, equally guilty as his brother, Hermogenes? For the murder of Ireneo Gallarte, was there conspiracy between appellants? For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused and co-accused had the same purpose and were united in execution.29 [People vs. Hubilla, Jr., 252 SCRA 471, 472 (1996)] Even if an accused did not fire a single shot but his conduct indicated cooperation with his co-accused, as when his armed presence unquestionably gave encouragement and a sense of security to the latter, his liability is that of a co-conspirator.30 [Ibid.] To hold an accused guilty as a co-conspirator by reason of conspiracy, it must be shown that he had performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy.31 [People vs. Luayon, 260 SCRA 739, 740 (1996)] Edwin’s participation as the co-conspirator of Hermogenes was correctly appreciated by the trial court, viz.:

However, we cannot find Edwin Flora similarly responsible for the death of Emerita Roma and the injury of Flor Espinas. The evidence only shows conspiracy to kill Ireneo Gallarte and no one else. For acts done outside the contemplation of the conspirators only the actual perpetrators are liable. In People v. De la Cerna, 21 SCRA 569, 570 (1967), we held:

To conclude, appellant Edwin Flora is guilty beyond reasonable doubt only of the murder of Ireneo Gallarte. He has no liability for the death of Emerita Roma nor for the injuries of Flor Espinas caused by his co-accused Hermogenes Flora.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby MODIFIED as follows:

Costs against appellants.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.