board or government-owned or controlled enterprise is required to insure its properties against any insurable risk with said Fund and pay the premiums thereon which shall not exceed the premiums charged by private insurance companies;

WHEREAS, there is a clear necessity to ensure a cost-effective, efficient and responsive insurance coverage;

WHEREAS, it is in the interest of government transparency to allow a public and open insurance bidding process for all insurance needs and the reinsurance of properties of the National Power Corporation (NPC) insured with the GSIS;

WHEREAS, in the spirit of competitiveness and ensure a level playing field, there is a need to allow the widest participation of the private sector in servicing the insurance and reinsurance needs of the NPC;

WHEREAS, the Secretary of Finance and the Secretary of Energy, among others, have recommended the institution of a public and transparent bidding of the reinsurance of the properties of NPC insured with the GSIS.

NOW, THEREFORE, I GLORIA MACAPAGALARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order:

SECTION 1. It is mandatory to institute an open, competitive and transparent bidding process for the reinsurance of the properties of the NPC insured with the GSIS, In line with the information technology thrust of the Government, the most suitable electronic bidding process shall be used for the bidding process as determined by the Committee created under Section 2.

SEC. 2. A Committee is hereby created to conduct the public bidding for the reinsurance of the properties of the NPC insured with the GSIS, composed of the following:

In view of the urgency of the matter, the Committee is hereby directed to convene not later than September 14, 2001.

SECTION 3. Only private insurance brokers duly registered to transact directly with Lloyd's of London or rated in accordance with internationally accepted standards shall be qualified to participate in the bidding process. In this regard, the Committee shall formulate such standards and criteria and select such number of qualified brokers, based on the above-mentioned standards and criteria, to participate in such bidding process.

SEC. 4. It is necessary to allow, as much as practicable, the participation of all qualified domestic insurance companies in accordance with their financial and technical capabilities and resources. The domestic companies shall, therefore, be offered facultative reinsurance on the NPC insurance program before any foreign reinsurance is placed.

SEC. 5. The winning insurance broker shall enter into a valid and comprehensive service contract with the GSIS and the NPC to highlight the broker's responsibility to respond to the needs of the NPC. The said broker shall post necessary performance bond to secure such

contract or contracts.

[G.R. No. 124078 February 1, 2000]

THIRD DIVISION

People of the PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO BLANCO y SEÑORA, accusedappellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accusedappellant.

1.

SYLLABUS

of the Ruling of the Court

REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WITNESS; CREDIBILITY; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT, RESPECTED.-It is axiomatic that the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of a witness is accorded with the highest respect because the trial court had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and to determine whether they were telling the truth or not. Exceptions to this rule are when the evaluation below was done arbitrarily or when the lower court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight

and substance which could have affected the result of the case. Here, none of these exceptions can be perceived.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; UPHELD IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF IMPROPER MOTIVE.-Where there is no evidence to indicate that the witness against the appellant has been actuated by an improper motive, and absent any compelling reason to conclude otherwise, the testimony of the witness should be given full faith and credit for it is inconceivable for such a witness to openly concoct a story that would send an innocent man to jail, let alone, to the gallows or lethal injection chambers.

3. ID.; ID.; ALIBI; WEAK DEFENSE.-Appellant's defense of alibi cannot help. For the defense of alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was perpetuated but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at

the approximate time of its, commission. Appellant failed to demonstrate either scenario. Well-settled is the rule that alibi is a weak defense not only because it is inherently unreliable but also because it is easy to fabricate. Where, as in this case, there is absence of strong and convincing evidence, alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of appellant by an eyewitness to the stabbing incident, who has no improper motive to testify falsely. Consequently, such alibi must necessarily fail.

4. CRIMINAL LAW; CONSPIRACY; WHEN PRESENT.— To establish conspiracy proof of a concerted action on the part of the accused demonstrating a common design and objective is sufficient. There is conspiracy where, at the time the malefactors were committing the crime, their actions showed a unity of purpose among them, a concerted effort to bring about the death of the victim.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PURISIMA, J.:

Appellant Alberto Blanco y Señora and the other accused, Arturo Punzalan, Ramil Pundan and Benito Gamis, were charged with Murder by the City Prosecutor of Lucena City in an Amended Information which alleged:

"That on or about the 9th day of August, 1993, in the City of Lucena, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab one Arnel Leovido y Dasco with a bladed weapon, causing his instantaneous death. That the commission of the offense was aggravated by the use of a motor vehicle.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

Upon arraignment thereunder, the appellant, Alberto Blanco, and Arturo Punzalan pleaded "Not Guilty" to the accusation. From the records, it appears that Ramil Pundan and Benito Gamis are still at large.

On July 10, 1995, the lower court of origin came out with its decision finding appellant Alberto Blanco guilty of murder for the killing complained of, qualified by the use of a motor vehicle; acquitting Arturo Punzalan for failure of the prosecution witnesses to identify him, and disposing thus:

"Wherefore, the foregoing considered, the Court finds accused Alberto Blanco y Señora guilty as principal by direct participation of the crime of murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance present, hereby sentences the said accused to reclusion perpetua and to pay the costs.

Alberto Blanco is ordered to pay the heirs of Arnel Leovido P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P12,000.00 as burial expenses and P10,000.00 as the unearned income of the deceased.

The preventive imprisonment undergone by Alberto Blanco shall be credited to him provided he had agreed voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.

Accused Arturo Punzalan is acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. His release from detention, unless he is detained for another cause, is ordered.

So ORDERED."

The trial court culled the testimonies of witnesses and the facts of the case as follows:

"In this trial against Blanco and Punzalan the prosecution presented four witnesses: Joey de Guzman, Edgardo Tolentino, P03 Nolasco Merluza and SPO 4 Antonio Amante.

Edgardo Tolentino, the principal witness for the prosecution, testified that on the night of August 9, 1993 at ten o'clock he and Arnel Leovido were in front of the Roman Catholic Cathedral waiting for a ride. They flagged down a passing tricycle. They agreed to pay the tricycle driver P8.00 for the distance to Red-V, Lucena City. They boarded the tricycle, Arnel Leovido entering first. When the tricycle reached the back of the Carlos Drug Store, the driver slackened the speed of the tricycle. Three men standing at the sidewalk boarded the tricycle. Two of the men sat behind the driver. The third one stood on the right side of the passengers. After the three men got on board, the driver accelerated the speed of the tricycle. The driver turned the vehicle towards the direction of the LC Big Mak. When Tolentino noticed they were running along Enverga Street, which is not the route going to Red-V, he held the hand of the driver. He told the

Decision, pp. 10-11.

driver to stop the tricycle. The driver ignored him and instead accelerated the speed of the tricycle going in the direction of Granja Street. Sensing something wrong, Tolentino told Arnel Leovido that they jump out of the tricycle. Tolentino jumped out first. Leovido followed him. After he and Leovido jumped out of the running tricycle he noticed that there was blood on the left side of Leovido. He asked Leovido what happened. Leovido said he was stabbed by the person at the back of the driver. Tolentino noticed that the mud guard of the tricycle has the following words: "Bunga ng Pagsisikap." An L-300 which happened to be passing by stopped. The passengers of the L-300 helped him bring Arnel Leovido to the Quezon Memorial Hospital. While Arnel Leovido was being treated, some policemen arrived in the hospital. They interviewed him. He told the policemen he could not identify the person who stabbed Arnel Leovido but he could identify the driver of the tricycle. Arnel Leovido expired that same night.

In court during his testimony, Tolentino pointed to Alberto Blanco as the driver of the tricycle. When asked to identify the men who sat behind Alberto Blanco, more particularly the one who stabbed Arnel Leovido, Tolentino did not identify Arturo Punzalan as one of the two backriders although Arturo Punzalan was then in the courtroom.

Joey de Guzman testified that on the night of August, 9, 1993, at nine o'clock, he was inside the Big Mak, Lucena City. A person whom he knew as Arturo Punzalan with three others arrived. They approached him. The four asked him if he wanted to join them in an undertaking wherein they would make money ("lakad na pagkakakitaan ng pera”). He declined to go with the four. After that he went home. He did not know what Arturo Punzalan and his three companions did after that.

In court during his testimony, Joey de Guzman was asked by Assistant City Prosecutor Fe M. Garcia if the Arturo Punzalan who approached him inside the LC Big Mak on the night of August 9, 1993 was present in court. Joey de Guzman said he was not in court. This despite the fact that the accused Arturo Punzalan was present in court.

SPO4, Antonio Amante and PO2 Nolasco Merluza of the PNP Lucena station were assigned to investigate the death of Arnel Leovido. Their first lead in the identification of the killers came from the information given to them by Edgardo Tolentino that the tricycle he and Arnel Leovido rode in had the words "Bunga ng pagsisikap" on its mud guard. They made inquiries from the officers of the Tricycle Owners Association of Lucena City. They went to see Mrs. Aristoteles. They learned from her that Alberto Blanco was the driver of her tricycle on the night Arnel Leovido was killed. They sought Blanco in his house and invited him to the police station. The tricycle was brought to the police station. There at the police station, Edgardo Tolentino pointed to Alberto Blanco as the driver of the tricycle he and Arnel Leovido rode in that fateful night. ***

him.

Accused Arturo Punzalan denied the accusation against