FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 122112. May 12, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PO1 ASPALAN MAING,
accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Accused-appellant PO1 ASPALAN MAING was
charged with murder for the death of Inspector Edmundo C. Angeles in an
Information[1] which reads:
That, in the
evening, on or about the 22nd day of December, 1992, in the municipality of
Sirawai, Zamboanga del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the said accused armed with a handgun, and with intent to kill by means of
treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Inspector EDMUNDO C. ANGELES,
PNP, thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wounds on the vital parts of his body
which caused his instantaneous death; that as a result of the commission of the
said crime the heirs of the herein victim suffered the following damages, viz:
a) Indemnity for
victim’s death..... P50,000.00
b) Loss of earning
capacity...... 30,000.00
-------------
P80,000.00
CONTRARY TO LAW
(Viol. of Art. 248, Revised Penal Code), with the qualifying circumstances of
treachery and evident premeditation.
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded
"not guilty" to the charge. Trial on the merits ensued. Scncä m
Thereafter, the lower court found
accused-appellant guilty as charged of the crime of murder and accordingly
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify the heirs of his victim P50,000.00.[2]
In convicting accused-appellant, the lower
court gave credence to the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution.
Emilia Angeles, widow of the deceased, testified on the expenses incurred
during the wake. Dr. Henry Cawley, NBI Medico-Legal Officer, reported on the
autopsy he conducted on the body of the deceased. According to his findings,
the deceased suffered four fatal gunshot wounds. SPO1 Arturo delos Angeles,
brother of the deceased, was presented to establish motive on the part of
accused-appellant. He testified that accused-appellant harbored a grudge on the
deceased because he was kicked and boxed by the latter for his alleged
insubordination.
PO3 Jamlang Buddih was presented as the main
prosecution eyewitness. According to him, on the night of December 22, 1992, he
was in the house of a certain Boling Mohammad located near the seashore of
Sirawai, Zamboanga del Norte waiting for the deceased as they were about to
depart for Zamboanga City. When the deceased arrived, they proceeded to the
beach. But before reaching their motorized vinta, the deceased decided
to go back as he left something in his house. A short while later Buddih heard
gunshots and saw the wounded Angeles fall to the ground. Buddih also saw a
figure of a man pointing a gun towards Angeles. Buddih was about three (3)
meters away from Angeles. NcmmisÓ
Buddih immediately reported the incident and
stated in the police blotter that Angeles was gunned down by an unidentified
assailant. On January 8, 1993, Buddih executed an affidavit, this time
pinpointing accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. However, when
placed on the witness stand, Buddih categorically denied having identified the
assailant. He clarified that he only heard rumors among his townmates that it
was accused-appellant who killed Angeles. Ncmâ
Accused-appellant denied all the accusations
against him. He averred that at the time of the incident, he was inside the
mosque praying. The mosque is located about five hundred (500) meters away from
the scene of the incident. Imam Sali Jamad corroborated his alibi. SdaaÓ miso
As stated above, the trial court found
accused-appellant guilty as charged. Hence, this appeal, wherein
accused-appellant submits the following: Oldmisâ o
I. THE COURT OF
ORIGIN ERRED IN IDENTIFYING THE ACCUSED AS THE GUNMAN WHEN NO WITNESSES IN
COURT IDENTIFIED THE GUNMAN.
II. THE COURT OF
ORIGIN ERRED IN CLAIMING THAT ALIBI IS REALLY A WEAK DEFENSE WHEN THE HONORABLE
SUPREME COURT HAD HELD IN VARIOUS CASES THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS AMONG WHICH
IS THE SITUATION OF THE ACCUSED AT THE TIME THE CHIEF OF POLICE WAS SHOT TO
DEATH.
III. THE COURT OF
ORIGIN ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE MUSLIM IMMAM ON THE
WHEREABOUTS OF THE ACCUSED FROM 6:00 TO 8:00 P.M. OF DECEMBER 22, 1992.
IV. THE COURT OF
ORIGIN HAS ERRED BY OVERLOOKING THAT THE GUN ISSUED TO THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN
RETURNED WITH THE 15 ROUNDS AS HE HAS RECEIVED THE SAME AND THEREFORE THE GUN
WAS NOT USED BY THE ACCUSED OR ANY PERSON.
V. THE COURT OF
ORIGIN ERRED IN THE SUPPOSED DIARY OF THE DECEASED CHIEF OF POLICE WHICH WAS
FOUND BY A BROTHER SEVERAL DAYS LATER AND AS FAR AS THE BROTHER’S TESTIMONIES
THEREFROM IT IS TOTALLY HEARSAY AND NOT ADMISSIBLE.
VI. THE COURT OF
ORIGIN ERRED IN ACCEPTING AND MAKING THE CONCLUSION ON THE FINDINGS OF DR.
HENRY CAWLEY NBI MEDICAL OFFICER PARTICULARLY THAT THE MUZZLE DISTANCE WAS ONLY
12-18 INCHES TO THE BODY OF THE VICTIM. Manikanä
VII. THE COURT OF
ORIGIN ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF PO3 JAMLANG BUDDIH WHEN
THERE IS INCONSISTENCY IN HIS AFFIDAVIT MARKED AS EXHIBIT B AND WITH SUBMARKING
WHICH HAS BEEN RETRACTED ON THE WITNESS STAND.
VIII. THE COURT OF
ORIGIN ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED AS THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OR
NO PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
These submissions are impressed with merit. Maniksâ
Basically, accused-appellant was convicted
based on the testimony of PO3 Jamlang Buddih, the only alleged eyewitness to
the crime. Significant note, however, should be taken of the fact that this
eyewitness has flip-flopped on his testimonies several times over. Immediately
after the killing, Buddih supposedly stated, as reflected in the police
blotter, that Angeles was shot and killed by an unidentified gunman.[3] Several days after the incident, or on January 8,
1993 to be exact, Buddih executed an affidavit[4] pinpointing the accused-appellant as the assailant.
But when placed on the witness stand he clarified that he did not actually see
the gunman. What he saw was only a figure of a man. He did not
positively identify the gunman as accused-appellant. He only assumed it was
accused-appellant from rumors among his townmates. Thus, when Buddih was placed
on the witness stand on June 18, 1993, he testified in this wise -
Q. How many
gunburst did you hear at that time?
A. Three times.
Q. Did you see the
person who was responsible for the gunburst?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you able
to identify the person who shot Chief Angeles?
A. I cannot
identify because it was dark.
Q. But you saw the
figure of the man who shot Angeles?
A. Yes, I saw
the figure of a man but I do not know the identity."[5]
During his cross-examination, Buddih was
asked to explain the inconsistency between his affidavit, executed several days
after the incident wherein he tagged accused-appellant as the gunman, and his
declaration in open court during direct examination disclaiming the fact that
he positively identified accused-appellant as the gunman. Thus -
Q. In your direct
testimony, you candidly told us in open court that you could not identify
the gunman who killed Police Inspector Edmundo Angeles? Is this correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in the
affidavit which you have executed several days after the incident x x x wherein
you said among others that the gunman who killed Chief Inspector Angeles was
the accused in this case, PO1 Aspalan Maing. Will you tell us which of these
conflicting statements is correct?
A. I cannot
identify.
Q. How come that
you mentioned the name of Aspalan Maing in your affidavit?
A. After the
incident, several days after the incident, according to the people in our
place they stated that it was Aspalan Maing who did that.
Q. For that
reason, since you were told by the inhabitants of Sirawai and it was the rumor
in Sirawai, you merely confirmed in your affidavit that it was Aspalan Maing
who killed Chief Angeles?
A. Because I
remembered he was once kicked by our Chief of Police and I was convinced that
he was the one.
Q. These are
your mere suspects and conjectors? (sic)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you
realized and affirmed your statement before this Honorable Court that you could
not identify the killer of Chief Angeles?
A. Yes, I
affirmed that I could not identify the person or perpetrator.[6]
In short, Buddih failed to positively
identify accused-appellant as the gunman. He only concluded it was
accused-appellant as it was the rumor in town. When questioned further by the
trial court, he affirmed his testimony that he was not able to identify
accused-appellant, thus -
Court:
Q. You have been
appointed PNP at Sirawai in 1985 and this accused Aspalan Maing was appointed
only in 1989?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. During that
span of time, you are very familiar of the figure of Maing? (sic)
A. Yes, your
honor.
Q. So, then, even
there is no moonlight or there is no clear light, you could identify the figure
of Aspalan Maing?
A. During the
time I was not able to identify.
Q. But there was
the same figure of Maing?
A. Dark figure.
Q. And you are
certain that before the incident, this accused was present and was within the
vicinity before the incident?
A. I have no
knowledge.
Q. So, in effect,
you are now denying or not admitted (sic) the affidavit you signed
before the Fiscal Peter Eisma?
A. Yes, your
Honor.
Q. This affidavit
executed before is worthless because you are denying the taking of this
affidavit, especially the answers on the facts of this sworn statement which
was given thru questions and answers?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were not
forced?
A. I was not
forced, because of the rumors that he was the one who did. Considering that I
am under him (Angeles), and I am with him during the incident, if I am the
head, if I will be killed, I was able to say that. (sic)
Q. In effect these
answers on this affidavit was voluntarily given, nobody putting the answers
into your mouth. It was your own language, the answers that were given by you
in this sworn statement before Fiscal Eisma?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But only when
you are called to the witness stand, you deny the veracity what you have
answered to the questions propounded by Fiscal Eisma?
A. Yes, sir. I was
able to state that because of our being under him.
Q. Is it not true
considering that the accused herein is your co-policeman in Siraway, and what
you have now declared categorically in Open Court is to help the accused?
A. I am stating
the truth. That is the real truth your Honor.
COURT:
That’s all.[7]
Despite his familiarity with
accused-appellant’s figure, he still failed to identify the assailant of
Angeles. He only based his statement on what he heard from his townmates. In
short, Buddih did not have first-hand knowledge of the identity of the
assailant. Therefore, his testimony that accused-appellant was the perpetrator
of the crime was purely hearsay and merits no evidentiary weight at all.[8]
Without any testimony positively identifying
accused-appellant as the gunman nor any evidence directly linking him as the
author of the crime, PO1 Aspalan Maing can not be convicted of the murder of
Angeles. Accused-appellant enjoys the presumption of innocence, which can only
be overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[9] Mere suspicions or conjectures, however strong, can
never become substitutes for this required quantum of proof.[10] This Court cannot affirm his conviction merely on
unfounded conclusions or conjectures. To do so, this Court must be convinced
that accused-appellant’s conviction is based on competent evidence and his
guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt.[11] This means a moral certainty that the accused is
guilty.[12]
Indeed, accused-appellant’s alibi may be the
weakest of all defenses. Nonetheless, this weakness ought not to be used as
proof of his guilt. The prosecution must rest on the strength of its evidence
and not rely on the weakness of the defense.[13]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, convicting
accused-appellant of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of his victim P50,000.00, is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, accused-appellant PO1 Aspalan Maing is ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED
from confinement unless held for some other legal grounds. No costs. Nexâ old
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno,
Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, p. 49.
[2] Decision penned by Judge Wilfredo G. Ochotorena.
[3] TSN, June 3, 1994, p. 3.
[4] Records, p. 5.
[5] TSN, June 18, 1993, p. 14; underscoring provided.
[6] Id., p. 19; underscoring provided.
[7] Id., pp. 20-21; underscoring provided.
[8] People v. Franco, G.R. No. 118607, March 4,
1997, 269 SCRA 211.
[9] People v. Hilario, 284 SCRA 344 (1998).
[10] People v. Dela Rosa, 284 SCRA 158 (1998).
[11] Cosep v. People, 290 SCRA 378 (1998).
[12] People v. Gil, 284 SCRA 563 (1998).
[13] People v. Gomez, G.R. No. 101817, March 26,
1997, 270 SCRA 432.