SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 122840. May 31, 2000]
THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO L. DOINOG and SAMUEL
L. CORTEZ, accused.
FRANCISCO L.
DOINOG, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.: batas
This case is here on appeal from the
decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 147, Makati,
finding accused-appellant Francisco L. Doinog and his co-accused Samuel L.
Cortez guilty of violation of P.D. No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
Robbery Law of 1974) and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and ordering them to pay the heirs of the victim, SPO2 Ricardo
Bautista, the amount of P50,000.00, plus costs.
The information for Highway Robbery, filed
on October 4, 1993 against both accused, reads:
The undersigned
4th Assistant Prosecutor accuses FRANCISCO DOINOG y LADRERO and SAMUEL CORTEZ y
LOPEZ of the crime of Violation of P.D. 532 (Highway Robbery), committed as
follows:
That on or about
the 19th day of September, 1993, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with Nene Lavadia,
alias Dodo, alias Randy and John Doe whose true identities and present
whereabouts are still unknown and mutually helping and aiding one another, with
intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, divest and carry away cash
money amounting to P1,000.00 more or less from Leonora S. Bañaga a bus
conductress and cash money and valuables from passengers namely, Ismael
Pontillas y Ladrero, Susan Pineda y Bautista and Jaime Doria y Molina in an
undetermined amount, while aboard a passenger bus which was travelling along
Magallanes, Bgy. Bangkal, Makati, Metro Manila, which is a Philippine Highway
as defined by P.D. 532, to the damage and prejudice of said Leonora S. Bañaga
and the aforementioned passengers in an undetermined amount; that on the occasion
of the said robbery and in order to insure the commission of the said offense,
the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them
mutually helping and aiding one another, with deliberate intent to kill and
without justifiable cause, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously shoot and stab one SPO2 Ricardo Bautista, thereby inflicting upon
him gunshot and stab wounds on the vital parts of his body which caused his
death; and that as a further consequence thereof, physical injuries were
inflicted upon the passengers namely Ismael Pontillas y Ladrero, Susan Pineda y
Bautista and Jaime Doria y Molina. yacats
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Another information for illegal possession
of firearms in violation of P.D. No. 1866 was filed on the same day against
accused-appellant, Francisco L. Doinog, alleging ¾
The undersigned
4th Assistant Prosecutor accuses FRANCISCO DOINOG y LADRERO of the crime of
Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions (P.D. No. 1866) committed as
follows:
That on or about
the 19th day of September, 1993, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and
control and carry outside of his residence a cal. 38 paltik with Serial No.
282550 with four (4) live bullets, which is in violation of the above-cited
law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded
"not guilty" to the charges against them.[4] After arraignment, accused Samuel Cortez escaped
from the Makati municipal jail and, to this date, has remained at large. The
trial proceeded as to accused-appellant alone.
The facts are as follows:
At around 1:30 in the afternoon of September
19, 1993, an air-conditioned bus of the Prince Transport was held-up as it
reached the Magallanes fly-over in Bangkal, Makati, along Epifanio de los
Santos Avenue. Five (5) armed men stood up from their seats in different parts
of the bus and announced the hold-up. One of the men seated beside the driver
pulled out a fan knife and poked it at the latter. Another robber took about
P1,000.00 from the bus conductor while the others divested the passengers of
their cash and valuables. A commotion ensued when one of the robbers fired a
gun. When the driver stopped the bus, the robbers and passengers alighted,
leaving only the bus driver, the bus conductor and an injured passenger, SPO2
Ricardo Bautista. SPO2 Bautista was later taken to the Villamor Air Base
Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. The autopsy report (Exh. E)[5] showed that he suffered gunshot and stab wounds
which led to his death. hustisya
Accused-appellant apparently was also aboard
the bus and was hit during the gun fire. He was taken to the Villamor Air Base
Hospital for treatment of a gunshot wound on the left thigh. While he was being
given first aid treatment at hospital, Sgt. Rogelio Bibat confiscated a .38
caliber firearm allegedly lying on a bed beside accused-appellant’s.
Accused-appellant was transferred first to the Philippine General Hospital and
then to the Ospital ng Makati and, afterward, placed under arrest and detained
in the Makati Municipal Jail.
On May 31, 1995, the trial court rendered
its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view
of the foregoing, the Court, finding accused Francisco Doinog and Samuel Cortez
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the
"Information" in Criminal Case No. 93-8496, hereby sentences them to
suffer reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of SPO2 Ricardo Bautista
of the sum of P50,000.00. With costs.
In Criminal Case
No. 93-8497, the Court hereby acquits accused Francisco Doinog for insufficiency
of evidence.[6]
Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant
assigns the following errors:
I.......THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
ACQUITTING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.
93-8496 FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION.
II.......THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE WHICH INCLUDES THE NEGATIVE
FINDINGS OF NBI FORENSIC CHEMIST MARY ANN ARANAS ON THE PARAFFIN TEST CONDUCTED
ON BOTH HANDS OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
III.......THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
ACQUITTING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.
93-8496 DUE TO REASONABLE DOUBT. Jksm
Accused-appellant contends that the
prosecution evidence consists mainly of testimonies of unreliable witnesses;
that the evidence in fact shows that he was the a victim of trumped-up charges;
and that the trial court failed to give due consideration to the report of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that when he was tested for powder
(nitrate) burns he was found negative.[7]
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
on the other hand, relies on the rule that the trial court’s determination of
the credibility of witnesses could no longer be disturbed on appeal. The OSG claims
that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses are
on minor details and do not affect their reliability.[8]
This Court generally accords respect to the
factual findings of the trial court judge, considering that the latter has the
opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and determine by their demeanor
on the stand the probative value of their testimonies.[9] There are exceptions to this rule, however, such as,
where the record shows that facts and circumstances of weight and influence
have been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied by the trial court which, if
considered, would have affected the result of the case, or when such findings
are arbitrary.[10]
This is such a case. Here, the trial court
based its finding of guilt primarily on the testimony of the supposed
eyewitness, Jaime Doria, who testified thus:[11]
Q......On September 19, 1993, at about 1:00 o’clock
in the afternoon, do you recall where were you?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......Where were you at that time?
A......I was aboard a bus. Chiefx
Q......Can you still recall what bus you were riding
in at that time?
A......Prince Transport.
Q......And you were then board for what direction?
A......I am proceeding to Bicutan.
Q......While as you said you were then on board the
said bus, do you recall of any unusual incident that took place?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......What was that incident?
A......There was a hold-up that took place.
Q......You said there was a hold-up that took place
do you know who that hold-upper was at that time?
A......I could not recognize if he is present in
Court.
Q......Will you please look around inside the
courtroom and pinpoint to the hold-upper as you said you saw on that date
September 19, 1993? Esm
A......Yes, sir. He is inside the courtroom.
Q......Please do pinpoint to him?
A......Yes, Sir. (Witness pointing to a person who
when asked his name answered by the name of Francisco D[o]inog.)
Q......Mr. Witness, at that time when the hold-up as
you said took place, in what particular place at the bus you were then
situated?
A......At the middle, sir.
Q......What about the accused when you first
notice him, where was he at that time?
A......Near the driver.
Q......What was he doing at that time, if any?
A......When we were proceeding to Magallanes, he
pulled out a fan knife.
Q......You said "siya", to whom are you
referring to?
A......That hold-upper, sir.
Q......And when the accused pulled out a fan knife
what transpired next?
A......I heard gunshots, sir.
Q......Were you able to know from where the gunshots
came from?
A......I could not recall. But what I heard is that
somebody pulled out a gun. During that time there was already a commotion.
Q......Do you know who is that somebody pulled out a
gun?
ATTY. TIRAD: Esmsc
......Misleading, your Honor. The witness testified that
the person pulled out a fan knife ...
FISCAL:
......I will reform the question. Do you know who is this
person as you said who pulled out a gun?
A......What I could recall is that somebody announced
a hold-up.
Q......In relation to the place where you said you
were then s[eat]ed, where was the man who as you said drew a gun?
A......At my right side, Sir.
Q......What about the three other companions, where
were they s[eat]ed at that time?
A......Somebody poked at the driver.
Q......And who was that somebody who poked at the
driver?
A......His companion, sir.
Q......While the same person the one who poked a
knife against the driver, where was then D[o]inog if you can still recall at
that time?
A......He was near the door of the bus.
Q......What was he doing at that time?
A......He got the watches and other valuable things
of the passengers.
Q......And what happened to you, if any?
A......My watch and my wallet were taken from me.
Q......What kind of watch is that?
A......Seiko.
Q......What about the money? Esmmis
A......P200.00, sir.
Q......As you said they were divesting the passengers
of their properties, what happened next, if any?
A......When we learned of a hold-up, all of us
alighted from the bus.
Q......You said you heard gunshots?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......How many gunshots?
A......Two, sir.
Q......Were you able to find out what happened after
the gunshots were fired?
A......I noticed that someone died, sir.
Q......And did you come to know who died?
A......A policeman, sir.
Q......What was the name of the policeman, if you can
still recall?
A......Ricardo Bautista. I read from the newspaper
that he is Ricardo Bautista.
Q......And you said after the incident, you and the
other passengers alighted from the bus?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......What did you do after that?
A......I rode another vehicle and proceeded to Bicutan.
Q......Do you recall having investigated by the
police officers in connection with this case?
ATTY. TIRAD:
......No basis, your Honor. The witness never testified
that he has gone to . . . haideem
FISCAL:
......I will reform the question. After you heard gunshots
I withdraw that. After you have learned that certain policeman as you said was
killed on that very occasion, what did you do next, if any?
A......I tried to find out where they lived, sir.
Q......What did you do?
A......I talked to them and told them that I would
help them.
Q......You said kinausap ko sila, to whom are
you referring to?
A......The wife of Ricardo Bautista.
Q......Who is this Ricardo Bautista, Mr. Witness?
A......The policeman.
Q......And what happened next, if any, after you have
informed the wife of the policeman who died?
A......I told her if they needed my help, she just
approached me and I will help them.
Q......And you, the wife of the policeman who died
during the incident talked with each other. Do you recall where were you then
s[eat]ed?
A......At their house.
Q......What did she tell you, if any?
A......She was not able to tell me anything because
she was still in the state of shock.
Q......On September 25, 1993, do you recall where
were you, Mr. Witness? Esmso
A......Yes, sir.
Q......Where were you at that time?
A......I was in Taguig, sir.
Q......Where in Taguig, in particular?
A......At the headquarters.
Q......And what were you going there if you can still
recall?
A......When I read from the newspaper about the
hold-up in that place, I proceeded to the police station.
Q......And as you said you were there at the police
station in Taguig, what happened while you were there?
A......I tried to find out who were the hold-uppers
that were arrested.
Q......And what did you find out, if any?
A......When I went to the police headquarters of
Taguig, I tried to see the hold-upper whom the policeman caught and try to find
out if the hold-uppers of that incident were also there.
Q......What did you discover, if any?
A......I discovered that one of them was one of
the hold-upper.
Q......And as you said one of them, to whom are
you referring to?
A......The witness is pointing to the accused,
Francisco D[o]inog.
Q......While you were there at the headquarters of
Taguig, do you recall having been investigated by the police?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......Was that reduced into writing?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......If that statement is shown to you would you be
able to recognize the same?
A......Yes, sir. Percuriam
Q......I am showing to you Mr. Witness, a statement
of one Jaime Doria, will you please go over the same and tell the Honorable
Court what relation has this statement to the statement that you have stated in
connection with this case?
A......This is the same, sir. This is the same sworn
statement that I executed.
....... . . .
FISCAL:
......Under your present oath, can you still affirm and
confirm the truthfulness of what is stated in this affidavit?
A......Yes, sir.
FISCAL:
......No further question, your Honor.
COURT:
......Cross-examination.
ATTY. TIRAD:
......With the permission of this Honorable Court.
COURT:
......You may proceed.
ATTY. TIRAD:
Q......Mr. Witness, you just testified that you
proceeded to the Taguig Headquarters after you have read the newspaper
regarding the arrest of the hold-uppers on the incident of September 19, 1993,
is that correct?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And while at the Taguig Police Station, you
were able to identify one of the hold-uppers, is that correct?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And when you were able to identify this
hold-upper, this identification of the hold-upper was not included in this
sinumpaang salaysay executed before the Taguig Police Station?
A......No, sir. Calrky
Q......Is it not a fact that everything that took
place while you were at the Taguig Police Station were reduced into writing?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And this is the document or the Sinumpaang
Salaysay which was executed at that time that you were at the Taguig Police
station?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And you affirmed the contents of all these
sinumpaang salaysay?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And you affirmed that it was Francisco
D[o]inog whom you were able to identify while you were at the Taguig Police
Station?
A......I learned that Francisco D[o]inog was one of
the hold-uppers who hit the policeman.
Q......You came to know of the person of Francisco
D[o]inog thru the papers only?
A......No, sir. When I alighted from the bus I looked
at him.
Q......I am showing to you this Sinumpaang Salaysay
which you have just affirmed a while ago, I will draw your attention in page
rather in par. 7, and I quote: "T: - Sa loob ng opisinang ito maari bang
igala mo and iyong paningin, at pagkatapos ay sabihin mo sa akin kung mayroon
kang nakikilala? S - Mayroon po, yon po, yan po yong tumutok ng balisong sa
driver ng bus (Affiant pointing to one Samuel Cortez y Lopez) inside
intelligence division office. Do you recall this paragraph, Mr. Witness?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......Is it not true that you have just stated
that you were able to identify Francisco D[o]inog at the Police Station of
Taguig?
A......I came to know Francisco D[o]inog thru the
newspaper. But at the police station it was his companion.
Q......So, Mr. Witness, it was only now that you
were able to identify and point to Francisco D[o]inog as one of the holdupper?
A......I could not recall his face. Scslx
Q......Is it only now that you came to identify
Francisco D[o]inog as one of the hold-uppers?
A......It is only now that I saw him. But I can
recognize his face.
Q......You are now changing your previous
testimony taken on direct. You were only able to identify Francisco D[o]inog
while you were at the Police Station of Taguig, is it not?
A......I saw him.
Q......Just answer my question.
A......I did not recognize him there.
....... . . .
Q......After the incident or after the alleged
hold-up, you took another vehicle and proceeded to Bicutan, is that correct?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And it never came to you that you should
report the matter to the police station?
Q......After the incident or after the alleged
hold-up, you took another vehicle and proceeded to Bicutan, is that correct?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......And it never came to you that you should
report the matter ......to the police station?
A......No, Ma’am. It never came to my mind because it
was just an incident, it never came to my mind to report the matter to the
police because I lost only few items.
Q......Mr. Witness, you testified in the
direct-examination that you were s[ea]ted at the middle of the bus at that time
of the incident?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......I am showing to you this Sinumpaang Salaysay
and call your attention particularly to par. 12, (please see par. 12).
......Do you recall having stated this, Mr. Witness?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......So, you are now changing what you have stated
in the direct-examination that you were s[ea]ted at the middle of the bus at
that time that the alleged hold-up took place?
A......No, Sir. Slxmis
Q......You are now adopting what you have stated in
that sinumpaang salaysay executed on Sept. 25, 1993 that at the time of the
hold-up, the alleged hold-up, that you were s[ea]ted in front of the bus and
that the alleged hold-upper was s[ea]ted besides the driver?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......So, it is not true. You have stated in the
direct-examination that at the time of the hold-up, you were s[ea]ted in the
middle of the bus, and the alleged hold-upper was besides the driver?
FISCAL:
......Objection, your Honor. There were five hold-uppers,
and the question was . . .
COURT:
......Answer.
ATTY. TIRAD:
......Which is which?
A......I was behind the driver.
Q......Mr. Witness, you testified that while you were
on board the bus on Sept. 19, 1993, you were sitting from one place to another?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......And for how many times were you been
transferring from one place to another?
A......Two times, Sir.
Q......And the reason why you were transferring from
one place to another is just you were feeling uncomfortable at that time?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......Mr. Witness, is that your usual manner when
you ride in a bus that you are transferring from one place to another?
A......Yes, Sir. Missdaa
Q......And at that time, Mr. Witness, when you were
transferring from one place to another, the direction of your eyes were not fix
at one place?
A......No, Sir.
Q......As a matter of fact, your eyes were looking
around inside the bus at that time that you were transferring from one place to
another?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......Were you the only person who was doing that
thing looking around the bus at that time?
A......No, Sir.
Q......Why? Who were the other persons who were
also looking around during that time?
A......The five holduppers.
Q......You are now saying before this Honorable Court
that in addition to the five holduppers you were also doing the same thing that
the holduppers were doing?
FISCAL:
......That will be immaterial, your Honor.
ATTY. TIRAD:
......It is very material, your Honor. It is just a follow
up question, your Honor, to the last answer of the witness.
COURT:......Witness may answer.
A......Yes, sir.
ATTY. TIRAD:
Q......At that time that you were looking around the
bus you already know in particular that there were five (5) holduppers inside
the bus at that time?
A......Not yet, Sir.
Q......When was the time that you came to know that
there were five holduppers? Rtcspped
A......When somebody shouted the holdup.
Q......When you heard that, what did you do?
A......First we were s[eat]ed and they were standing
at that time.
Q......How about you, did you stand, Mr. Witness, at
that time?
A......You could not stand immediately, because you
were surprised.
Q......When you heard gunshots, what was your
reaction?
A......We stoop down.
Q......But you said that after the incident, you
alighted from the bus?
A......When I saw somebody alighted, we immediately
follow up them.
Q......Did you not remain at the bus before you
alighted?
A......No, Sir.
Q......The five holduppers were with you or they were
left from the bus?
A......They alighted first.
Q......And then you followed?
A......All of us alighted because we saw somebody
fell.
Q......Mr. Witness, you testified that you saw
Francisco Doinog pulled out a knife and poked at the driver?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......And you are sure of that?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......So, you are not changing what you have stated
in your sinumpaang salaysay under par. 12?
A......No, Sir. Kortex
Q......Mr. Witness, while you were at Taguig Police
Station, do you remember having been asked what really transpired during the
incident on Sept. 19, 1993 and you have given this answer . . . (please see
par. 12) do you remember having said that before the Taguig Police Station?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......So, earlier, Mr. Witness, you testified that
you saw Francisco Doinog pulled out a knife and poked at the driver, is that
correct?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......So, you are now adopting two testimonies,
Mr. Witness, that you saw Samuel Cortes pulled out a knife while sitting
besides you and poked at the driver?
A......There were two holduppers who poked a knife
at the driver.
Q......But you did not state that in your
sinumpaang salaysay which was executed on September 25, 1993, how many days
after the incident of September 19, 1993, that there were two who pulled out a
knife, Mr. Witness?
A......No, Sir.
Q......So, you are now saying that there were two who
poked a knife at the driver, who pulled out a knife and poked at the driver?
A......Because I can recall.
Q......Just answer the question.
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......On September 25, 1993, you failed to recall
such incident?
A......I can remember, Sir. Sclaw
....... . . .
We have quoted in extenso the
testimony of the principal witness to show the extent of contradictory
statements made by him and how he kept on changing his answers in an apparent
attempt to inject consistency in his account of the events. While it may be
true that, as the trial court noted, Jaime Doria was not shown to have
ill-motive or bias in testifying against accused-appellant, the inconsistencies
in his testimony are so glaring and material that they cast doubt on his
credibility.
Thus, on direct examination, Jaime Doria
claimed that he was seated in the "middle of the bus" while
accused-appellant was seated near the driver. However, on cross-examination, he
testified that what he said in his affidavit (Exh. F)[12] executed before the police, i.e., that he was
seated in front, behind the driver, was the accurate statement. He tried to
explain that he kept moving from seat to seat during the ride because he was
"uncomfortable." But why he thus felt he did not say. Nor did he
explain why he was looking around at the other passengers inside the bus, as
did the five robbers. If this were true, then his actions were unnatural, if
not altogether suspicious.
Likewise, during direct examination, the
witness stated that it was one of accused-appellant’s companions who poked a
knife at the bus driver, while accused-appellant stood "near the
door" of the bus. Upon examination by the defense counsel, however, he
said that initially it was accused-appellant who poked a knife at the driver.
When his inconsistency was pointed out to him, Jaime Doria changed his answer
and claimed that there were two men who held a knife against the driver. Slxsc
It also appears that the witness cannot
clearly recall whether gun shots were fired by robbers seated at the left and
right sides, or at the front and back portions of the bus. Initially, he stated
that the man seated to his right pulled a gun when the hold-up was announced.
Upon questioning by the Court, however, he testified that he heard gun shots
coming from the "front and at the back" of the bus. It is noteworthy
that nowhere in his testimony did this witness claim he saw any of the robbers
in front carrying a gun. Even from his confusing statements, it appears that
the two robbers in front, who were within his vantage point, were carrying
bladed weapons, not guns.
But the most serious discrepancy in Jaime
Doria’s testimony relates to his supposed positive identification of accused-appellant
as one of the robbers. In his affidavit (Exh. F), there was no mention of
accused-appellant’s name, much less his identification as one of the
assailants. It was accused Samuel Cortez whom he identified thus:
T......Sa loob ng opisinang ito maari bang igala mo
ang iyong paningin, at pagkatapos ay sabihin mo sa akin kung mayroon kang
nakikilala?
S......Mayroon po, yon po, yan po yong isa sa
homoldap sa amin sa Bus na sinasakyan ko, yan po yong tumutok ng Balisong sa
driver ng Bus (Affiant pointing to One Samuel Cortez y Lopez) inside the
intelligence division Office.[13]
On direct examination, Doria claimed that
accused-appellant was one of robbers he saw and identified at the Taguig police
station. When cross-examined by defense counsel, however, Doria admitted that
he "did not recognize [accused-appellant] at the police station" and
knew him/his face only from the newspapers. Even upon additional direct and
cross-examination, the witness was not able to clarify the matter and left his
testimony further confused, viz.: Sdaadsc
COURT:
......Where did you board the bus?
A......At Cubao, your Honor.
Q......Were there already passengers inside the
bus when you went up the bus?
A......There were only few.
Q......You mentioned about five holduppers, where did
they board the bus?
A......They were already inside the bus when I
boarded.
Q......And they were standing?
A......They were standing and some were sitting down.
Q......Despite of the fact that the bus was not
yet full pack?
A......The bus was already full.
Q......Before the holduppers announced the holdup,
were all passengers s[eat]ed?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......And when they announced the holdup the five of
them stood up?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......Who announced the holdup the one besides you
or the one in front? Mesm
A......The one in front.
Q......Francisco Doinog?
A......Yes, your Honor.
Q......What did he say when he announced the holdup?
A......He told the passengers not to move because
this is a holdup.
Q......Was he already holding a knife?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......As he announced the holdup, did he poke a
knife at the driver?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......How about this policeman who died in that
incident, where was he s[eat]ed?
A......At the back, your Honor.
Q......The shots which you heard, where did they came
from?
A......Both sides.
Q......What do you mean both sides? Left and right?
A......In front and at the back.
Q......So, you heard a shot in front and you heard
another shot behind the bus?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......Where was the commotion, outside the bus or
inside the bus?
A......Inside the bus.
Q......What did the driver do, did he stop the bus?
A......Yes, Sir.
Q......And the passengers went down?
A......Yes, Sir. Slx
Q......How was the holdupper able to get the watches
and valuables of the passengers?
A......Tinutukan din po kami.
Q......While you were still s[eat]ed at that time?
......You mean all the five holduppers divested valuable
things from the passengers?
A......Yes, Sir.[14]
If indeed Jaime Doria saw and identified
accused-appellant during the robbery and again while the latter was supposedly
detained at the Taguig police station, there is no reason why he did not say so
in his affidavit executed before the police investigators. In the end, the
witness had to admit that he did not see accused-appellant at the Taguig police
station.
ATTY. TIRAD:
Q......Mr. Witness, you testified you heard
Francisco Doinog that it was Francisco Doinog who announced a holdup and then
after poked a gun. It is only now, Mr. Witness that you are testifying that
Francisco Doinog announced holdup and pulled a knife, is that correct?
A......Yes, sir.
Q......Why you did not state that on September 25,
1993 when your sinumpaang salaysay was executed? Kycalr
A......No need, sir.
ATTY. TIRAD:
......That will be all, your Honor.
FISCAL:
......Re-direct, your Honor.
COURT:
......Proceed.
FISCAL:
Q......Why did you not state that in your
statement given at the police station?
A......Because Francisco Doinog was not at the
Taguig Police Station.
FISCAL:
......No further question, your Honor.[15]
We cannot understand how the trial court
could rely on Jaime Doria’s testimony, given these blatant discrepancies
therein. In People v. Ragay,[16] we held:
It is settled that
no undue importance should be given to a sworn statement or an affidavit as a
piece of evidence because, being taken ex-parte, an affidavit is almost
always incomplete and often inaccurate. But, it is equally settled that when
there is an omission in an affidavit concerning a very important detail, the
omission can affect the affiant’s credibility. Kylex
Rules of evidence are laid down for the
determination of truth, and the trial court cannot abdicate its duty by hiding
behind general rules without scrutinizing the evidence before it.
Second. According to prosecution witness Sgt. Rogelio Bibat, he confiscated a
.38 caliber paltik revolver from accused-appellant while the latter was
being treated at the Villamor Air Base Hospital.[17] Sgt. Bibat admitted he did not really know if the
gun belonged to accused-appellant. He testified:
COURT:
Q......Who told you that the gun belongs to the
accused Francisco Doinog?
A......The concerned citizens who brought the
victim and the suspect to the hospital, your Honor.
Q......Were these concerned citizens who told you
that the gun belongs to Francisco Doinog inside that room where the accused was
being treated?
A......The one who actually seen the commission of
the crime, the robbery, your Honor.
....... . .
ATTY. TIRAD:
Q......Mr. Witness, so it was the concerned citizens
who told you that the .38 caliber gun belongs to the accused Francisco Doinog?
A......Yes, ma’am.
Q......It was also these concerned citizens who told
you that Francisco Doinog was the one who committed the robbery, is that
correct?
A......Yes, ma’am. Exsm
Q......Did you ask the names of these concerned
citizens?
A......The driver, conductress and one of the
passengers who is unhurt at that time.
Q......Did these persons execute any affidavit to
that effect?
A......I do not know.
Q......At that time, Mr. Witness you never asked
the accused what can he say about the .38 caliber gun?
A......Never, ma’am.
Q......So you just relied on what these concern
citizens told you, Mr. Witness?
A......Yes, ma’am.
Q......And based on their testimony you executed a
sworn statement, is that correct?
A......Yes, ma’am.[18]
On the other hand, the driver and the
conductor of the bus executed sworn statements[19] in which they said they did not recognize the
robbers. The bus driver, Llardo Dinagub stated in his statement:
0.6......T......Nakita
mo ba na may nakuhang mga alahas o pera o ano mang bagay sa mga pasahero mo?
S......Hindi ko napansin sa dahilan ang aking
iniintindi ay aking pagmamaneho. Msesm
0.7......T......Natatandaan
mo ba kung saan mo sila naisakay?
S......Hindi po.
0.8......T......Nakita
mo ba kung sino ang bumaril sa napatay na Pulis?
S......Hindi po, sa dahilan ang attention ko ay nasa
aking pagmamaneho.
Leonora Bañaga, the bus conductor, likewise
stated:
06.......T.......Nakikilala
mo ba ang kumuha ng iyong collection?
S.......Hindi ko po matatandaan.
07.......T.......Kung
mahuli ang ibang mga holdaper naituturo mo ba kung sino sa kanila ang kumuha ng
collection mo?
S.......Di po.
SPO2 Martin Pataueg, who made the
investigation report on the incident and to whom Sgt. Bibat turned over the .38
caliber paltik revolver, testified that accused-appellant
admitted to him that the gun was his (accused-appellant’s). This assertion,
however, was not even included in the investigation report. More importantly,
if this were true, it was made by accused-appellant without assistance of
counsel and, thus, cannot be the basis of any finding of guilt.
COURT:
Q......Did you not investigate the accused Francisco
Doinog?
A......As a matter of fact I asked and talked with
the accused as to who are his companions and he made mention of his companions,
these four (4) who were allegedly residing somewhere in Valenzuela. As a matter
of fact the group of follow-up led by me was immediately dispatched to
Valenzuela in order to effect the arrest of the accused but we were not able to
because we cannot find the accused in that place, your Honor.
Q......Did you ask the accused if [he owned] the gun
which was turned-over to you by Sgt. Bibat?
A......He made mention that he really holds that gun,
that the gun was taken from him, your Honor. Sclex
Q......The accused Francisco Doinog?
A......Yes, your Honor.
Q......He told you that the gun was taken from him?
A......Yes, your Honor.
Q......Did you also ask Francisco Doinog if he fired
the gun?
A......I asked him but he told me that he did not
fire the gun that is why I cause his personality be examined by forensic. He
was examined by the N.B.I. to determine the powder burns, your Honor.
Q......Was there already a report of the N.B.I. of
the gun powder burn?
A......I cannot recall at this very moment, your
Honor, I do not know whether that was the same result of the N.B.I. sent to me
it is in my record, your Honor, probably I will try to find out whether that
was the same result of the forensic.
COURT:
......That will do.
ATTY. TIRAD:
......Additional cross, your Honor.
COURT:
......Alright.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY ATTY. TIRAD:
(Add’l.)
ATTY. TIRAD:
Q......Mr. Witness, you said that the accused made
mention that the gun was taken from him, was the accused Francisco Doinog
assisted by a lawyer at the time when he told you that the gun was taken from
him? Missc
A......There was none, [it was] just a matter of an informal
inquiry.
Q......Did you include that in your investigation
report?
A......I cannot recall, I will try to scan again for
purposes of recalling it, I did not made mention.
Q......So, it was not reflected in your investigation
report that the accused told you that the gun was taken from his possession?
A......Yes, ma’am. It was not reflected in the
investigation report.
Q......It is only now that you are saying that the
accused Francisco Doinog told you that that gun was taken from his possession?
A......That was the exact words that he made
mentioned to me.[20]
In any event, the supposed eyewitness, Jaime
Doria, testified that accused-appellant carried a knife, not a gun, while the
paraffin test conducted on accused-appellant showed he was negative for
gunpowder burns.[21]
For the foregoing reasons, we are
constrained to set aside the conviction of accused-appellant and to acquit him.
As held in People v. Crispin:[22]
Settled is the rule that conviction should
rest on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness
of the defense. The identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even though accused-appellant invokes the
inherently weak defense of alibi, such defense nonetheless acquires
commensurate strength in the instant case where no positive and proper
identification has been made by the prosecution witnesses of the offender, as
the prosecution still has the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of
the accused. The weakness of the defense does not relieve it of this
responsibility. Sppedx
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
147, Makati, is hereby REVERSED and accused-appellant Francisco Doinog is
ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Director of Prisons is hereby directed
to forthwith cause the release of accused-appellant unless the latter is being
lawfully held for another cause and to inform the Court accordingly within ten
(10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), and Buena, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., on leave.
[1] Per Judge Teofilo L. Guadiz, Jr.
[2] Records, p. 2.
[3] Id., p. 20.
[4] Id., p. 34.
[5] Id., p. 195.
[6] Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 29.
[7] Brief for Accused-Appellant, pp. 9-18; Rollo, pp. 57-66.
[8] Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, pp. 12-14; Rollo, pp. 117-119.
[9] E.g., People v. Lapay, 298 SCRA 62 (1998)
[10] People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 130188, April 27, 2000; People v. Balamban, 264 SCRA 619 (1996)
[11] TSN, pp. 2-12, May 17, 1994. (Emphasis added)
[12] Sinumpaang Salaysay, p. 1; Records, p. 196.
[13] Id.
[14] TSN, pp. 12-13, May 17, 1994.
[15] Id., p. 15.
[16] 277 SCRA 106, 126-127 (1997)
[17] TSN, pp. 3-5, March 17, 1994.
[18] Id., pp. 12-14.
[19] Records, pp. 18-19.
[20] TSN, pp. 12-14, March 22, 1994.
[21] Exh. 2; TSN (Mary Ann Aranas), pp. 2-6, March 7, 1995.
[22] G.R. No. 128360, March 2, 2000. See also People v. Fronda, G.R. No. 130602, March 15, 2000.