G.R. No. 172608 - People vs. Mapalo

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agoo, La Union, in Criminal Case No. A-2871, originally found appellant Bernard Mapalo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the RTC decision and convicted Mapalo of frustrated murder instead, basing its ruling on deficiencies in the evidence regarding the alleged conspiracy.

The Information charged Bernard Mapalo, together with co-accused Alejandro Fajardo, Jr., Jimmy Frigillana, and Rolando Mapalo alias “Lando,” with the crime of murder.
The alleged crime occurred on or about 13 February 1994 in the Municipality of Aringay, La Union, where the accused, armed with a lead pipe and bladed weapons, attacked Manuel Piamonte with intent to kill.
The modus operandi involved treachery, evident premeditation, and the use of superior strength in a concerted attack, which was later modified in the appellate ruling as the evidence did not conclusively prove such a conspiracy.

On the night of 12–13 February 1994, a pre-Valentine dance was held in Sitio Baracbac, Brgy. Sta. Cecilia, Aringay, La Union.

Prosecution witness Calixto Garcia attended the dance and later observed a fight early in the morning around 3:00 a.m.
Garcia testified that he saw a fight erupt involving Manuel Piamonte and a group consisting of Mapalo, Jimmy Frigillana, and Rolando Mapalo.

Witness Garcia observed Mapalo striking Piamonte on the head with a lead pipe.
Garcia described the lead pipe as being approximately one and a half feet long and one and a half inches in diameter.
The witness noted that while he saw the clubbing, he did not witness the stabbing, although multiple stab wounds were later observed on the victim’s body.

Appellant Bernard Mapalo testified that on the evening of 13 February 1994, he was at his residence entertaining guests with his wife, Caridad Mapalo, and thereafter went to sleep.
Caridad Mapalo corroborated her husband’s alibi, stating that they remained at home despite a reported commotion near the dance hall, which was only 20–30 meters away from their residence.
The defense argued that the proximity of the residence to the dance hall made the alibi implausible, yet maintained that his absence from the actual incident negated his participation.

Prior to the trial, the RTC issued a warrant of arrest for Mapalo which was later supplemented by a Motion to Admit Amended Information to include additional accused.
Alejandro Fajardo, Jr. was the only one among the co-accused apprehended; the others remained at large.
During trial, after the prosecution rested its case, the co-accused who lacked evidence against them filed a Demurrer to Evidence, leaving Mapalo as the sole accused presenting evidence on his behalf.

Appellant contended that the prosecution’s sole eyewitness, Calixto Garcia, failed to positively identify him in open court.
It was argued that without a physical in-court identification, the prosecution had not discharged its duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mapalo was indeed one of the perpetrators.

The appellant objected to the modification of the charge from murder to frustrated murder.
He argued that the absence of evidence linking him to the act of stabbing—and instead only proving a clubbing with a lead pipe—should preclude a conviction for a killing (murder) that resulted from multiple stab wounds.

The appellant maintained that proof of a conspiracy, or a common design among the accused, was insufficient.
It was asserted that without clear evidence of a prearranged plan or concerted act, the liability for murder based on conspiracy could not be sustained.

The defense raised issues regarding the credibility of the eyewitness, particularly emphasizing the witness’s potential intoxication and the limitations of his observations.
It was further argued that any inconsistencies in the witness’s affidavit should have led to a favorable inference for the accused.