THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 131835. February 3, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNULFO[1] QUILATON alias
"ARNOLD," PATRICIO QUIYO, DIDING MAMALINGPING, AVELINO AHAO y
LATIMBANG, HILDO BUACON y EMPONG, accused;Kycalr
ARNULFO
QUILATON alias "ARNOLD," appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The burden of proof rests upon the
prosecution. Unless it succeeds in proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the constitutional presumption of innocence remains. Mere
passive presence at the crime scene does not prove participation in the
conspiracy.
Statement
of the Case
Arnulfo Quilaton appeals before us the
February 5, 1996 "Judgment"[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan, Cotabato
(Branch 17), in Criminal Case No. 1560 which disposed as follows:[3]
"WHEREFORE,
prescinding from all the foregoing considerations, the Court hereby pronounces
the accused Avelino Ahao, Hildo Buacon and Arnulfo Quilaton guilty of the crime
charged beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly hereby sentences each to
undergo [the] prison term of [r]eclusion [p]erpetua for the death of Pio de
Juan and Arturo Laos,[4] to indemnify the heirs of Arturo Laos and Pio de Juan
and for [the] frustrated murder of Jerry de Juan, Arnel Laos and Carlito Taping,
the Court hereby sentences each to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from
eight years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four (4)
months of Reclusion Temporal as maximum and to pay medical expenses incurred by
the victim.
Mesm
"The criminal
liability of Patricio Quiyo and Diding Mamalingping is extinguished pursuant to
Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code."
On September 23, 1982, acting Second
Assistant Provincial Fiscal Camilo O. Fulvadora filed an Information dated
September 17, 1982, charging herein appellant and the other accused as follows:[5]
"That on or
about August 9, 1980, at Barangay Kauswagan, Municipality of Magpet, Province
of North Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, armed with a 20 gauge pistol, ax, claw bar, and
a hoe, with intent to kill, conspiring, confederating together and mutually
helping one another, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, ax and wound
Arturo Laus and Pio de Juan, thereby hitting and inflicting upon the latter
mortal wounds on the vital parts of their bodies which caused their
instantaneous death, and on the same occasion, the same accused with intent to
kill, and in treacherous manner, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously beat Jerry de Juan, strike Arnel Laus, hack and shoot Carlito
Taping, hitting and inflicting on the vital parts of their bodies, thus
performing all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of
Triple Murder, as a consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it by reason
of causes independent of the will of the perpetrators, that is, by the timely
and able medical assistance rendered to Jerry de Juan, Arnel Laus and Carlito
Taping which prevented their death." Slx
Accused Diding Mamalimping and Patricio
Quiyo died during the pendency of the proceedings in the trial court.[6] On June 16, 1983, the three other accused, with the
assistance of Attys. Gregory Yarra and Jorge Zerrudo, entered a plea of not
guilty.[7] A rather lengthy trial ensued. On March 20, 1996,[8] the trial court promulgated its "Judgment"
dated February 5, 1996. In an Order dated June 17, 1996, the court a quo denied
Quilaton’s Motion for Reconsideration.[9]
Hence, this appeal filed by Quilaton only.[10]
The
Facts
Version
of the Prosecution
In its Brief,[11] the prosecution summarized the facts of this case as
follows:[12]
"[O]n the
evening of August 9, 1980, Erlinda Taping, her husband Carlito Taping, and
their children were sleeping at the sala of the second floor of her father’s
house in Kauswagan, Magpet, North Cotabato (p. 13, TSN, March 14, 1985).
Downstairs, Arturo Laus (Erlinda’s father), Hildo Buacon, appellant Arnulfo
Quilaton, Diding Manalingping, Avelino Ahao, Arnel Laus, Gerry de Juan, and Pio
de Juan were sleeping (p. 11, TSN, March 4, 1985). Buacon, Quilaton, Ahao, Pio
de Juan and Mamalingping were laborers in Arturo Laos’ rubber plantation (pp.
3-4, TSN, March 14, 1985). Scslx
"Between
10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. of the same night, Erlinda was sleeping when she was
struck by an ax (p. 14, TSN, March 14, 1985). She shouted at her husband,
Carlito, and woke him up (p. 14, TSN, August 20, 1984).
"Carlito
Taping stood up. Erlinda, on the other hand, got a flashlight and, with it, saw
her husband push Hildo Buacon and Diding Mamalingping (p. 15, TSN, August 20,
1984).Slxsc
"Carlito
Taping was hacked by Hildo Buacon on the head (p. 16, TSN, August 20, 1984).
Carlito then pushed Buacon and Mam[a]lingping down. The two men fell to the
elevated floor portion of the stairs before reaching the ground floor (pp.
18-19, TSN, August 21, 1984).
"Thereafter,
Patricio Quiyo who was downstairs handed a gauge 20 firearm to Buacon (p. 21,
TSN, March 14, 1985) who then went upstairs and shot Carlito Taping. The latter
was hit [i]n the stomach (p. 20, TSN, August 21, 1984). Erlinda Taping was
almost 1 1/2 meters from her husband, and 3 to 4 meters from Buacon at the time
of the shooting (p. 21, TSN, August 21, 1984).
"After the
shooting, Buacon gave the gun to Patricio Quiyo (p. 21, TSN, August 21, 1984).
Thereafter, these two men with Diding Mamalingping ran out of the house (p. 22,
TSN, August 21, 1984).
"When
Erlinda, with Carlito and their children, went downstairs, she saw her father
(Arturo Laus) already dead, with a wound on the face just above the nose. Pio
de Juan was lying face down on the cemented floor, also dead. Erlinda also saw
Arnel Laus wounded on the head, but still alive, as well as Gerry de Juan who
was likewise wounded (pp. 22-25, TSN, August 21, 1984). Carlito saw appellant
Quilaton come out from under the bed (p. 8, TSN, January 4, 1984).
"Erlinda
brought Arnel Laus and Carlito Taping to the Brokenshine Hospital. She did not
bring Gerry de Juan along since she thought he was already dead (p. 26, TSN,
August 21, 1984).
"De Juan was
brought to the Madonna Hospital. It was appellant who paid for his
hospitalization (pp. 26-28, TSN, August 21, 1984)."Slxmis
Version
of the Defense
In his Brief, appellant submits the
following statement of facts:[13]
"On August 9,
1980 at Barangay Kauswagan, Magpet, North Cotabato, a group of malefactors
attacked/assaulted the occupants of a house and committed the following crimes:
double murder and triple frustrated murder.
"It was
established that these persons were also occupants of the house that night and
were sleeping there being workers/laborers, and in the case of Arnulfo Quilaton,
a houseboy, 16 years of age.
"The victims
of the crimes were ARTURO LAUS and PIO DE JUAN who were killed[;] JERRY DE
JUAN, ARNEL LAUS and CARLITO TAPING, Arturo Laus’ son-in-law were seriously
injured.
"Accused of
the crimes were: PATRICIO QUIYO, DIDING MAMALINGPING, AVELINO AHAO, HILDO
BUACON and ARNULFO QUILATON alias ARNOLD.Missdaa
"It was also
established that in the afternoon of that day there was a drinking spree in the
rubber plantation attended by the accused. But while Buacon declared that Arnulfo
Quilaton was with the group, this was denied by Avelino Ahao, who omitted
Arnulfo’s name in his testimony, but Carlito Taping, principal witness and
offended party declared that Quilaton was not a participant in the spree,
confirmed by Quilaton himself when he testified in his behalf. There is
therefore serious doubt as to the participation of ARNULFO QUILATON in the
conspiracy, thus he can not legally be responsible for the acts of his
co-accused, especially [since] it is a basic rule of evidence that conspiracy
must be proved like the crime itself beyond reasonable doubt.Sdaadsc
"Carlito
Taping who was seriously injured during the incident was first treated at Sto.
Niño Hospital in Makilala town but was transferred to the Brokenshire Hospital
in Davao City.
"The
prosecution’s Offer of Evidence/Exhibits will show that no doctor was
presented, but the medical certificates of the wounded were identified by
Carlito Taping and/or Erlinda Laus Taping.Rtcspped
"From the
evidence adduced, it appears that the MOTIVE for the crimes committed were (1)
tenancy disputes and (2) [the allegation that] Carlito Taping x x x boxed
Patricio Quiyo in the presence of the Barangay Captain, Jesus Kionisala."[14]
The trial court summarized appellant’s
testimony in this wise:[15]
"ARNULFO
QUILATON testifying in his behalf declared that he is 29 years old, married,
farmer, a resident of Kauswagan, Magpet, Cotabato. That on 9 August 1980, he
was in the house of his employer Arturo Laos. He denied having planned and
participated in the killing of Laos and Pio de Juan. He admitted having struck
Jerry de Juan believing that he was a bad man. The house of Arturo Laos is a
two (2) storey [structure;] the upper portion is occupied by the Taping family,
while the lower portion is occupied by Arturo Laos, Pio de Juan, Jerry de Juan
and Arnel Laos. He denied having knowledge of the plan to kill Laos and de Juan
as he was at the time in his employer’s house."Korte
Ruling
of the Trial Court
In convicting the accused, the trial court
explained:[16]
"From the
mass of evidence, the prosecution has established the identity of the accused
Hildo Buacon, Avelino Ahao and Arnulfo Quilaton as the perpetrators of the
crime. Accused’s pretended innocence x x x is overturned by the prosecution’s
evidence, particularly the testimonies of Carlito Taping and Erlinda Taping who
positively identified all of the accused on that fatal evening. Conspiracy has
been established in the instant case x x x.
"Accused
failed to present an iota of evidence to at least corroborate their
testimonies. No motive was established by the defense as to why they [were]
being indicted for such a heinous crime."Sclaw
Assignment
of Errors
Appellant submits that the trial court
committed the following errors:
(1) x x x FINDING
ARNULFO QUILATON GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED BASED
UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE TRIALS;
(2) x x x
SENTENCING ARNULFO QUILATON TO THE MAXIMUM PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA
DESPITE CONCLUSIVE PROOF WHICH IS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT SAID ACCUSED, ARNULFO
QUILATON was a minor of 16 years at the time of the incident, AS THE RECORDS
SHOW THAT HE WAS IN THE CUSTODY OF HIS PARENTS;
(3) X X X FINDING
ARNULFO QUILATON IN CONSPIRACY WITH HIS CO-ACCUSED;
(4) X X X NOT
CONSIDERING THE DESISTANCE OF THE DE JUAN RELATIVES AND THE RETRACTION OF
CARLITO TAPING, OFFENDED PARTY AND EYE-WITNESS.
In resolving this appeal, the Court will
determine whether the prosecution has proven appellant’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.Sclex
This
Court’s Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
Main
Issue: Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
The burden of proof rests upon the
prosecution. Unless the guilt of the accused is proven beyond reasonable doubt,
the constitutional presumption of innocence applies.[17]
In the present case, the prosecution
presented two alleged eyewitnesses, Carlito and Erlinda Taping. Relying on
their testimonies, the trial court ruled that appellant conspired with the
other accused in attacking the victims on the night of August 9, 1980. While
these two witnesses categorically established the criminal participation of the
other accused, their very testimonies show, however, that appellant had no part
in the conspiracy. There was no showing at all that he had confabulated with or
assisted any of the other accused in committing the crime, or that he was even
aware of their criminal design.Xlaw
Erlinda Taping testified as follows:[18]
"Q At about
between 19:00 o’clock to 11:00 o’clock that evening of August 9, 1980, was
there any unusual incident that happened inside your house?
A Yes, sir, there
was.
Q What happened?Xsc
A First, I noticed
that I was struck by an ax.
Q When you were
hit what did you [do] if you did anything?
A I shouted at my
husband that there was a man.
x x x x x x x x x
Q When your
husband stood up, what did you do?
A I got a
flashlight.
Q And what did you
do with the flashlight?
A I flash[ed] the
flashlight [on] them.
Q And did you see
anybody when you flash[ed] the flashlight?
A Yes, sir.Sc
Q What [did] you
[see]?
A I saw that he
was push[ed] down by my husband.
Q Who was pushed
by your husband?
A Hildo Buazon and
Diding Mamalimping.
x x x x x x x x xScmis
Q When your
husband stood up, what happened, if any?
A He was hacked by
Hildo Buacon.
x x x x x x x x x
Q After he was hit
on the head by Hildo Buacon, what happened next?
A When he was
hacked on the head, he pushed the two men down.
x x x x x x x x x
Q Now when these
two, Hildo Buacon and Diding Mamalimping fell on the elevated portion of the
stair, what did your husband do, if any?Missc
A He just watched
them.
x x x x x x x x x
Q While your
husband was watching x x x that portion, of the house, what happened next, if
any?
A Patricio Quiyo
told Buacon to shoot.
Q Where was
Patricio Quiyo at that time?
A He was down
stairs.Misspped
x x x x x x x x x
Q And what did
Hildo Buacon do, if any?
A He went upstairs
and then [fired a shot].
Q Who was shot?
A My husband, sir.
x x x x x x x x x
Q Now, what did
your husband do after he was shot[?]Spped
A He just sat
down.
Q What about these
3 persons, Hildo Buacon, Diding Mamalimping and Patricio Quiyo, what did they
do if they did anything?
A They ran away.
Q You mean they
went out of your house?
A Yes, sir.
Q [Did] you [see]
Arnulfo Quilaton that time?
A Yes, sir, when
we went downstairs already.Jospped
Q Where was
Arnulfo Quilaton when you went downstairs?
A He was in the
bodega."
Erlinda’s direct testimony clearly shows
that she saw appellant only after the incident. In fact, her averments during
cross-examination established that she saw him only when he came out of hiding.[19]
"A When we
went down we saw Arnulfo Quilaton and Hildo Buacon [on] the cement. Hildo
Buacon went out [from] under the bed. Arnulfo Quilaton [sought] cover at the
corn mill.Sppedjo
Q So, when you
went down and when you saw these persons, Hildo Buacon and Arnulfo Quilaton,
you saw them hiding?
A Yes, sir
Q And what did you
do when you saw them?
A We just
proceeded to the car and Buacon and Quilaton went with us.
x x x x x x x x x
Q You mean to tell
us that Arnulfo Quilaton and Hildo Buacon helped in bringing the victim Arnel
Laos and load[ing] him in the car?Miso
A Yes, sir."
Carlito Taping narrated the incident in this
wise:[20]
"Q At about
10:00 o’clock in the evening of August 9, 1980, was there any unusual incident
that took place in your house?
A There was, sir.Nexold
x x x x x x x x x
Q Tell us, what
[was] that incident?
A At around 10:00
o’clock x x x that evening of August 9, 1980, while I was sleeping all of a
sudden I woke up when my wife told me that there was a person so I woke up and
after I woke up, I stood and then a person hacked me.
x x x x x x x x x
Q What followed
next after you were hacked?
A When I was
hacked by that person, I took hold of him and I pushed him down to the ladder.Manikx
x x x x x x x x x
Q Who hacked you,
if you know?
A Hildo Buacon.Maniks
Q If this Hildo
Buacon is inside the courtroom now, could you point to him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Please do so[.]
A (Witness points
to a person inside the room who when asked his name answered Hildo Buacon, one
of the accused herein).
x x x x x x x x x
Q On what part of
your house were you when you were hacked?
A I was hacked at
the sala of [the] upper floor of our house.Manikan
x x x x x x x x x
Q After wiping
your forehead because of blood oozing, what happened next?
A My wife tied my
head with a piece of cloth.
Q What about Hildo
Buacon, where was he when your wife was tying your forehead with a piece of
cloth?
A They fell down x
x x the stairs.
x x x x x x x x x
Q You used the
word ‘they’, who were they?
A Diding
Mamalimping.Oldmiso
Q Before Diding
Mamalingping fell together with Hildo Buacon, what did Diding Mamalimping do?
A He was able to
come up the stairs.
Q Why did these
Hildo Buacon and Diding Mamalimping f[a]ll [down] the stairs?
A Because I took
hold of Hildo Buacon and pushed him [down] the stairs and at the same time
kick[ed] him, that [was] why they fell.
x x x x x x x x x
Q After pushing
down Buacon and Mamalimping and they fell [down] the stairs, what did you do?
A I got my
‘lagarao’ which was place[d] about my pillow.
Q At that time,
what was your wife doing, i[f]any?
A She took our
flashlight.
Q What did she do
with that flashlight?
A After I took
hold of my ‘lagarao’ I wanted to follow them but when my wife flashed the
flashlight, they were no longer there; they were already down the house.
Q After that?
A I ran upstairs
because I heard Quiyo saying: ‘pusila’ meaning, ‘[shoot] him[.]’
Q Did you see
Quiyo when he uttered ‘shoot him’?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where was Quiyo
that time?
A He was also
there at the base of the stairs x x x.
Q How were you
able to recognize him?
A Because my wife
[trained the] flashlight [on] him.
x x x x x x x x x
Q After you were
shot, what did you do next?
A I ran to my room
and hid.
Q How about your
children, what did they do?
A They cried for
help.Ncm
Q Your wife?
A She shouted for
help.
Q And was there
anybody who came to help you?
A None, sir.
Q Since nobody
came to [your] succor x x x, what did you do?
A I told my wife
that we will go down altogether so that I can be brought to the hospital.
Q How did you go
down?Ncmmis
A I was not able
to go down yet because there were people downstairs.
Q What did you do
when you observed that there were persons below your house?
A I just sat
inside my room.
Q And, finally,
were you able to go down?
A Yes, we were
able to go downstairs because I told x x x all of them that we will altogether
go down the house.
Q When you were
able to go downstairs, who were those people you saw downstairs?
A Hildo Buacon and
Arnulfo Qulaton were there downstairs.
Q By the way, why
was Arnulfo Quilaton there that time?
A Because he slept
in our house.
Q Why, is Arnulfo
Quilaton your employee?
A Yes, sir.Scncm
Q Employed with
whom?
A With my
father-in-law.
Q What was
Arnulfo Quilaton doing that time [when you saw] him downstairs?
A They came out
from under the bed."
Nothing in the foregoing testimony imputes
any criminal act to appellant. Moreover, Carlito subsequently declared that, to
his knowledge, appellant did not participate in the crime. In an
affidavit dated May 23, 1994, he averred:[21]
"That I very
well know Arnulfo Quilaton alias Arnold, he having grown up in our family and
that I very well know and am convinced that he had nothing to do and was
totally innocent of the gory and tragic incident that happened to our family on
August 9, 1990 at nighttime;
"That I and
my witnesses did not see or notice any participation or involvement of Arnulfo
Quilaton relative to the crime, and as a matter of fact he assisted and
accompanied me in going to the hospital, first [to] Sto. Nino, Makilala,
Cotabato and later to the Brokenshire Hospital in Davao City; that I know him
to be trustworthy and of good moral character."
Proof of Conspiracy
Citing the testimonies of Erlinda and
Carlito, the trial court nonetheless convicted appellant on the basis of his
alleged conspiracy with the other accused.
We disagree. The well-settled rule is that
conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the commission of the offense itself.[22] True, direct proof is not essential, because
conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and
after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common
purpose and design.[23]
Clearly, however, the prosecution failed to
prove the elements of conspiracy. There was no evidence that appellant aided
the other accused or that he participated in their criminal design. Conspiracy
was not implied by his mere presence at the crime scene,[24] which could be explained by the fact that as an
employee of the deceased, he had been told to sleep there. In fact, the two
eyewitnesses saw him only after the incident.
The testimonies given to implicate appellant
indicated only that he was seen coming out of hiding after the other accused
had fled. There was nothing abnormal or sinister about his conduct. That he hid
while the killing was being committed was not a crime. Some may damn him for
cowardice but, just the same, the act of hiding did not prove participation or
conspiracy in the crime.Sdaamiso
Furthermore, appellant himself assisted
Carlito Taping in bringing the wounded to the hospital that night. While this
act did not necessarily prove that he was innocent, it nonetheless strengthened
his contention that he had no part in the criminal design.
Testimonies of the Other Accused
Failed to Implicate Appellant
Noteworthy is the fact that not one of the
other accused, after having admitted their participation in the crime,
implicated herein appellant. Accused Hildo Buacon stated that he participated
in the attack, because he had been threatened by Diding Mamalingping and
Patricio Quiyo. He testified thus:Sdaad
"Q. After you
ha[d] been already sleeping, what happened?
A. This Diding
Mamalimping awakened me.
Q. What did he
tell you?
A. He told me,
'pag-mata na, naa na si Patricio Quiyo', meaning, wake up because Patricio
Quiyo is already here.Scsdaad
Q. After you woke
up, what did you do?
A. When I woke up,
this Patricio Quiyo pointed a gun towards me.
Q. What did
Patricio Quiyo tell you after point[ing] a gun to you?
A. He said,
'patyon nato si Arturo Laos ug Carlito Taping', meaning, let us kill Arturo
Laos and Carlito Taping.
Q. What did you
tell him when you heard that?
A. I answered,
'dili ko ana Nong kay wala siyang atraso nako', meaning, I will not, he has no
differences with me.
Q. What happened
after that?
A. If you will not
accede, I will kill you.
Q. What happened
next?
A Because of fear,
I acceded.
Q. Now, what
happened next when you acceded?
A. He also called
on Avelino Ahao to wake up.
Q. Why? where was
Avelino Ahao sleeping that time?
A. In the other
room [in] that same house.
Q. After Avelino
Ahao x x x already woke up, what happened next?
A. He was
threatened in the manner [in] which I was threatened.
Q. Then what
happened next?
A. They killed
Arturo Laos and Pio De Juan.
Q. Who killed Pio
De Juan and Arturo Laos?
A. Patricio Quiyo
and Diding Mamalimping killed Arturo Laos.
Q. How about [Pio]
De Juan? Who killed him?
A. Avelino Ahao
struck him with an iron bar on the portion below his left arm and then he was
hacked by Patricio Quiyo.
x x x x x x x x x
Q. What were you
doing that time?
A. I just
look[ed].Suprema
Q. Then, after the
two were already killed, what happened next?
A. I was brought
upstairs to the place where Carlito Taping was.
Q. And you went
with them upstairs?
A. Yes, I went
with them.
Q. Who were with
you when you went upstairs?
A. Patricio Quiyo
and Diding Mamalimping.
Q. What happened
when you went up?
A. This Carlito
Taping woke up and I hacked him.Juris
Q. Where was he
hit?
A. He was hit on
his temple but because he resisted, he pushed me.
Q. Where were you
pushed?
A. Towards the
stairs.
Q. Then what
happened when you were pu[sh]ed downstairs?
A. Immediately,
this Patricio Quiyo handed me a gun and told me to shoot Carlito Taping
Q. Was Carlito
Taping hit when you [shot] him?
A. Yes, [i]n his
stomach.
Q. Then what
happened next after that?
A. He fell then
we, all of us, went down.
Q. Then what
happened next?
A. Mrs. Taping
[trained her flashlight on] us and I hid under the bed.
Q. Then how about
the others, Diding Mamalimping and Patricio Quiyo and Avelino Ahao, what did
they do?
A. I do not know anymore
where they were."
Accused Ahao, on the other hand, also stated
that he took part in the commission of the crime, together with Buacon, Quiyo
and Mamalingping. Like Buacon, he made no mention that appellant was part of
their group.Scjuris
Testimony of Appellant
Even the solicitor general admitted that the
two prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, by themselves, "appear
insufficient to establish appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt"; and
that they "do not constitute adequate proof that appellant participated in
the crimes committed [against] the victims."[25] The solicitor general maintains, however, that what
linked appellant to the crime was this portion of the latter’s testimony:
"Q. And while
there was a rumble, you were just sleeping?
A. I was surprised
regarding that commotion.Jurissc
Q. Isn’t it that
you were given an iron bar to hit one of the victims in the person of Jerry de
Juan?
A. Incidentally, I
took hold of the ‘sadol’ hoe and upon seeing that the person I met [was] a bad
person x x x I hit him and I discovered later that it was Jerry de Juan."[26]
The solicitor general argues that these
statements constituted sufficient proof of appellant’s participation in the
conspiracy.Misjuris
We disagree. That alleged admission, by
itself, did not show beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was part of the
conspiracy. He himself explained that he thought he was hitting one of the
"bad men." His explanation must be viewed in the light of the chaos
that characterized the night. As testified to by the other accused, there were
four attackers. It was dark and forbidding. It was not surprising that someone
who was not a part of the conspiracy was confused and unable to think
rationally. That appellant immediately concluded that the person he had hit was
one of the attackers was not farfetched. To repeat, no other act was imputed to
him. Verily, the circumstance cited by the solicitor general fails to produce
moral certainty that appellant was part of the conspiracy.
In the present case, we are convinced that
the prosecution evidence failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence. The appellant deserves an acquittal and must forthwith be given back
his liberty.[27]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED; and the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan, Cotabato, insofar as it
convicted Appellant Arnulfo Quilaton, is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. On reasonable doubt, appellant is hereby ACQUITTED. The
director of the Bureau of Corrections and the head of the Davao Prison and
Penal Farm are hereby directed to release appellant immediately, unless he is
being lawfully held for another cause; and to inform the Court of the date of
his release, or the reasons for his continued confinement, within ten days from
notice. No costs.
SO ORDERED.Jjlex
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1] Sometimes spelled "Arnolfo" in the appealed
Judgment and in some portions of the records.
[2] Written by Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano.
[3] Judgment, pp. 9-10; rollo, pp. 28-29.
[4] Also spelled "Laus" in other parts of the
records.
[5] Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[6] Records, p. 60.
[7] Records, p. 69.
[8] Records, p. 796.
[9] Records, p. 805.
[10] The case was deemed submitted for resolution on
October 12, 1999, upon the Court’s receipt of the Appellee’s Brief. The filing
of a reply brief was deemed waived, as none was submitted within the
reglementary period.
[11] This was signed by Assistant Solicitor General
Mariano M. Martinez, Assistant Solicitor General Nestor J. Ballacillo and
Associate Solicitor Tomas M. Navarro.
[12] Appellee’s Brief, pp. 4-7; rollo, pp. 100-103.
[13] Appellant’s Brief, pp. 3-4; rollo, pp. 70-71.
This was signed by Atty. Juan G. Sibug.
[14] Also spelled "Kiunisala."
[15] Judgment, p. 7; rollo, p. 26.
[16] Ibid., p. 8; rollo, p. 27.
[17] People v. Pidia, 249 SCRA 687, November 9,
1995.
[18] TSN, August 21, 1984, pp. 14-23.
[19] TSN, March 14, 1985, pp. 29-30.
[20] TSN, January 4, 1984, pp. 3-8.
[21] Records, p. 428.
[22] People v. Albao, 287 SCRA 129, March 6, 1998;
People v. Obillo, 284 SCRA 79, January 14, 1998.
[23] People v. Sumalpong, 284 SCRA 464, January 20,
1998; People v. Timple, 237 SCRA 52, September 26, 1994.
[24] People v. Villagonzalo, 238 SCRA 215, 230-231,
November 18, 1994.
[25] Appellee’s Brief, p. 11; rollo, p. 107.
[26] Appellee’s Brief, p. 12; rollo, p. 108; citing
TSN, April 13, 1994, p. 8.
[27] The crime happened on August 9, 1980; the Information
was filed on September 23, 1982; the appealed "Judgment" was
promulgated on March 20, 1996; the Motion for Reconsideration was denied on
June 17, 1996; the appeal to this Court was perfected on June 20, 1996; and
this appeal was deemed submitted for this Court’s resolution on October 12,
1999. Fortunately for appellant, due to his minority, he had been placed under
the custody of his parents and had not been detained during the lengthy
proceedings in the trial court. Since April 19, 1996, he has been confined at
the Davao Prison and Penal Farm.