In People vs. Ismael Mokammad, Cairoden Mokammad, Hadji Amer Mokammad and Taratingan Mokammad, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ismael and Cairoden Mokammad for murder and frustrated murder, reinforcing the principle that positive identification by credible witnesses outweighs defenses of denial and alibi. This ruling emphasizes that Philippine courts prioritize direct, trustworthy eyewitness accounts when determining guilt, especially when the accused cannot convincingly prove their absence from the crime scene and their defense lacks strong supporting evidence.

When Eyewitness Testimony Pierces the Veil of Alibi

The case revolves around an ambush that occurred on August 3, 1996, in Lanao del Sur, targeting Vice Mayor Hadji Nasser Kasim Amerol and his companions. Ismael and Cairoden Mokammad, along with two other accused who remained at large, were charged with murder and frustrated murder following the death of Olomoddin Abbas and injuries to several others. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Ismael and Cairoden guilty based on the positive identification made by the surviving victims, a decision that the Court of Appeals (CA) later affirmed with modifications. Central to the defense was the appellants’ claim of alibi, asserting they were elsewhere at the time of the incident.

At trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of Hadji Nasser Kasim Amerol and other survivors, who identified Ismael and Cairoden as being among the assailants. The witnesses recounted how they were ambushed by a group of men armed with high-powered firearms, resulting in Olomoddin Abbas’s death and serious injuries to others. The defense countered with alibi, with Ismael claiming he was tending to his cows at his farm and Cairoden asserting he was doing carpentry work at home. The defense also presented corroborating witnesses to support their alibis.

However, both the RTC and the CA found the alibis unconvincing, primarily because the appellants failed to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the scene of the crime. Positive identification by the prosecution’s witnesses, who had no apparent motive to falsely accuse the appellants, weighed heavily against the defense. In Philippine jurisprudence, alibi is considered the weakest of defenses and cannot prevail over clear and credible eyewitness testimony. As such, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court (SC) emphasized the significance of the positive identification by the surviving victims. The Court reiterated the long-standing principle that trial courts’ findings on the credibility of witnesses are given great weight and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of misapprehension of facts. The SC found no compelling reason to deviate from this established rule, holding that the victims’ testimonies were credible and that no ill motive existed for them to falsely accuse the appellants.

In its analysis, the SC underscored the qualifying circumstance of treachery, noting that the attack was sudden, unexpected, and ensured the execution of the offense without risk to the assailants. Regarding the procedural aspect, the SC addressed the initial information filed for the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder, clarifying that each act of murder and frustrated murder should have been charged separately. However, since the defense did not raise this issue in a motion to quash, the SC deemed the defect waived and upheld the conviction on all counts.

Consequently, the SC affirmed the penalties imposed by the CA with some modifications regarding damages. The Court found Ismael and Cairoden guilty of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Additionally, they were found guilty of three counts of frustrated murder, with each count carrying a penalty of imprisonment ranging from eight years and one day of prision mayor to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal. The SC also adjusted the amounts awarded for civil indemnity, moral damages, temperate damages, and exemplary damages, both to the heirs of the deceased victim and to the surviving victims.

The Supreme Court made important revisions to the damages awarded in this case. Civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased was set at P50,000.00, moral damages at P50,000.00, temperate damages at P25,000.00, and exemplary damages at P30,000.00. Similarly, each of the surviving victims was awarded P25,000.00 for temperate damages, P40,000.00 for moral damages, and P20,000.00 for exemplary damages. These awards aim to compensate for the physical injuries, emotional distress, and loss suffered by the victims and their families, serving as a measure of justice and redress in the aftermath of the crime.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether the positive identification of the accused by the surviving victims was sufficient to overcome their defense of alibi and establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for murder and frustrated murder.
What is the significance of “positive identification” in this case?	Positive identification means that the surviving victims were able to clearly and credibly identify Ismael and Cairoden Mokammad as among the perpetrators of the crime, and this identification formed a crucial part of the evidence against them.
Why was the defense of alibi rejected by the court?	The defense of alibi was rejected because the appellants failed to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the scene of the crime, and their alibis were contradicted by the positive identification made by credible prosecution witnesses.
What is “reclusion perpetua”?	Reclusion perpetua is a penalty under Philippine law, equivalent to life imprisonment. It is imposed for serious crimes, such as murder, and carries with it certain accessory penalties and restrictions.
What were the penalties imposed for frustrated murder?	For each count of frustrated murder, the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment ranging from eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
What is the importance of “treachery” in this case?	Treachery is a qualifying circumstance that elevates the crime to murder because the attack was sudden, unexpected, and ensured that the victims had no opportunity to defend themselves.
Why was the original information considered defective?	The original information was considered defective because it charged a complex crime of murder with frustrated murder, rather than charging each act of murder and frustrated murder separately, which is the proper procedure.
What types of damages were awarded in this case?	The court awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, temperate damages, and exemplary damages to both the heirs of the deceased victim and the surviving victims, compensating them for the loss, suffering, and harm they experienced as a result of the crime.

This case demonstrates the Philippine judicial system’s emphasis on reliable eyewitness accounts and the difficulties defendants face when relying on alibi as a defense, especially when they fail to provide convincing proof of their absence from the crime scene. The courts will consider any evidence, as well as awarding appropriate compensation to victims of crime.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Ismael Mokammad, G.R. No. 180594, August 19, 2009