G.R. No. 180169 February 27, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. AGUSTINO TAMOLON and ANTONIO CABAGAN, Appellants.

FACTS

Appellants Agustino Tamolon and Antonio Cabagan were charged with Multiple Murder for the deaths of Jaime Malabarbas, Ely Malabarbas, Judith Malabarbas, Wilfredo Panton, and Gerry Panton in March 1984 in Magsaysay, Davao del Sur. The prosecution’s lone eyewitness, Modesto Landas, testified that on March 15, 1984, at about 8:00 p.m., he was with a roving patrol group that included appellants, Ernesto Damali, Samson Cabagan, Kimpo Angga, and Joseph Wagia. Upon reaching the Malabarbas house, the group, except for Landas, opened fire and hacked the victims, resulting in their deaths. The appellants pleaded not guilty and raised the defenses of denial and alibi. Tamolon claimed he was a farmer and honey gatherer in Makilala, North Cotabato, at the time and did not know the victims. Cabagan denied participation and claimed he and Landas were later detained and offered inducements to testify against others. The defense also presented Barangay Captain Gregorio Sumakbang and Pastor Sungkadan Amit to support their claims. The Regional Trial Court convicted both appellants of multiple murder and sentenced each to five penalties of reclusion perpetua (subject to the limitation under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code) and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of each victim ₱50,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification, adding an award of ₱50,000 as moral damages to the heirs of each victim.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of appellants for Multiple Murder based on the lone, allegedly fabricated, ill-motivated, and polluted testimony of Modesto Landas.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witness Modesto Landas, which was affirmed by the CA, is entitled to great weight and respect. Landas’ testimony was found to be positive, direct, straightforward, and convincing. The Court reiterated that the testimony of a co-conspirator, even if uncorroborated, can be sufficient for conviction if given unhesitatingly and in a straightforward manner. The appellants’ defenses of denial and alibi cannot prevail over Landas’ positive and categorical identification. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were elsewhere when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene. The appellants failed to establish this impossibility. The Court also found no merit in the challenge to the award of damages, noting the CA’s modification was in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.