G.R. No. 76245 - Banaag vs. Bartolome

A criminal complaint was filed on February 9, 1965 by the chief of police of Sallapadan, Abra against Ayaman Abboc, Bitel Abboc, and Bersamin (Benjamin) Abboc.
Subsequently, an information for murder was filed on September 30, 1965 by the provincial fiscal with the Abra court of first instance, which was later amended on March 8, 1966 to include Bitel Abboc as co-accused due to his continued flight.

The murder occurred on January 27, 1965 involving the fatal shooting of the victim, Lucagan Banig.
The sequence of events was recounted by key witnesses:

Dayapan Banig, sister of the victim, testified that the accused – Ayaman, Benjamin, and Bitel Abboc – inquired about the whereabouts of Lucagan Banig at her residence in Bantay, Sallapadan, Abra.
After the accused departed, Dayapan heard two gunshots followed by a cry, which she identified as her brother’s protest.
On approaching the scene with a lighted kerosene lamp, she found Lucagan Banig wounded, who identified the accused as being responsible for his assault.
Marcos Banig, the victim’s brother, corroborated the account by testifying that while on his way to assist his sister upon hearing the commotion, he encountered the accused fleeing the scene and later confirmed the victim’s dying declaration.

Dayapan Banig provided a detailed narrative of the events and the victim’s identification of his assailants.
Marcos Banig supported her account by attesting to the proximity and timing of his arrival, along with his own observations of the accused during the incident.

A sanitary inspector, Bantes Saluquem, conducted an exploratory examination on the body in the absence of a physician and testified on the nature of the wounds.
The autopsy report (Exhibit A) detailed five bullet wounds: two entry wounds (both located on the right side of the victim’s back) and three exit wounds.
The report noted the presence of powder burns near the wounds, which corroborated the sequence of events as described by the witnesses.

The accused presented an alibi stating that Ayaman and Bitel Abboc were in Manabo, Abra, attending to a sick relative, Capitan Dioayan, at the time of the shooting.

The trial court found this alibi implausible due to the short distance (approximately three kilometers) between Manabo and Bantay, Sallapadan, a distance easily covered in a short period on horseback.
The clear identification of the accused by Marcos Banig on the scene further discredited this defense.

The third accused’s alibi (Benjamin/Bersamin Abboc) was also rejected after the trial court detected inconsistencies and forgery in the police blotter entries, which were altered from their original records.

The appellants primarily attacked the trial court’s credibility assessment, questioning the reliability and sequencing of the witnesses’ testimonies.
They raised speculative arguments regarding the physical possibility of the victim’s wound trajectory and the timing of the witnesses’ arrival at the scene.
The appellate brief was noted as being vague and lacking specific page references and concrete facts from the record, thus failing to meet the procedural requirements for a substantial appeal.

Whether the trial court properly assessed and gave due credence to the testimonies of Dayapan and Marcos Banig.
Whether the credible observations of the trial court justify its findings on the guilt of the accused.

Whether the accused’s defense of having a valid alibi (being at Manabo, Abra) is sustainable in light of the evidence, including distance considerations and witness identification.
The impact of the identified falsifications and inconsistencies in the police blotter on the credibility of the alibi.

Whether the appellants’ failure to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court in their appeal brief merits the dismissal of their arguments.
Whether the trial court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, rendering the speculative arguments of the appellants without merit.