G.R. No. L-33327 - People vs. Almendras

On August 8, 1970, at about 2:00 a.m. in Cebu City, victim Clemente Abellanosa was riding at the back of a motorcycle driven by Marcelo Alit.
A person riding at the back of another motorcycle, later identified as Florentino Almendras, suddenly fired two shots at the victim.
The gunshot wounds inflicted severe injuries—ruptured spleen, stomach, liver, and a penetrating lung wound—which led to the victim’s death early the next day after surgery.

An information was filed on August 13, 1970, in Criminal Case No. CCC-XIV-136 before the Circuit Criminal Court, Cebu City.
The charge stated that Almendras, armed with a .45 caliber revolver, committed murder with deliberate intent, treachery, and personal violence.
The information detailed the nature of the wounds and linked the act directly with the fatal outcome as “contrary to law.”

During the arraignment on August 24, 1970, Florentino Almendras pleaded not guilty to the murder charge.
After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a decision on February 27, 1971.
The trial court found Almendras guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered him to pay P12,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased along with other accessory penalties, and mandated the confiscation of the death weapon.

According to the prosecution, on the early morning of August 8, 1970, as Marcelo Alit drove the motorcycle with victim Abellanosa on the backseat, appellant Almendras fired two shots from a motorcycle driven by Rogelio Villamor.
After the shooting, Almendras and his companion sped away toward Mabolo St.
When the motorcycle driven by Alit stopped upon noticing the victim’s injury, Abellanosa was placed on the road and quickly attended by police and taken to a hospital.
Patrolman Dionisio Cabantan, responding to a flash report received via radio, observed men on a red motorcycle and, after a chase resulting in a crash, saw Almendras throwing his revolver among tall weeds.
The revolver was recovered on clear ground, and subsequent identification procedures involved affidavits and corroborative testimonies by Rogelio Villamor and Marcelo Alit.
Medical reports by Dr. Max C. Abellana and forensic evidence (including bullet slug extraction) further substantiated the cause of death.

The defense contended that Almendras was not present at the scene in the capacity alleged, asserting an alibi based on his presence at Pier IV with his common-law wife, Remedios Daclison, earlier in the night.
According to the appellant, after collecting money and moving away from the pier for a brief errand, he heard gunshots and, in response, ran toward a boat and fell into the sea.
Appellant further claimed that he was later rescued and that his subsequent treatment by police, which he described as maltreatment, should cast doubt on the reliability of subsequent identifications.
Additionally, Almendras argued that eyewitness Patrolman Cabantan did not give a clear identification based on his red polo shirt and that such clothing is common, thereby undermining the credibility of identification.

The recovery of the murder weapon (the revolver with four live rounds and evidence of being thrown) played a crucial role in linking Almendras to the crime.
The forensic findings from the victim’s autopsy and the bullet extraction provided physical backing to the prosecution’s narrative.
Eyewitness accounts, particularly those of Patrolman Cabantan and Marcelo Alit, consistently pointed to Almendras as the shooter.
The sequence of events from the crime scene, chasing, crashing, and eventual arrest solidified the chronological integrity of the prosecution's case.

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution established, beyond reasonable doubt, that Florentino Almendras was the individual who committed the murder of Clemente Abellanosa.
Whether the identification provided by eyewitnesses, despite minor discrepancies in details such as the color description and the commonality of certain attires (red polo shirts), was enough to negate Almendras’s alibi.

Whether Patrolman Cabantan’s testimony regarding the appellant’s actions (throwing the revolver and attempting to hide) provides a clear and positive identification.
Whether Marcelo Alit’s identification of Almendras, despite not furnishing all descriptive particulars (like the exact color of the motorcycle), is sufficiently persuasive and free of bias.

Whether the alleged mistreatment during arrest had any bearing on the integrity and reliability of the evidence against the appellant.
Whether such procedural irregularities could be used to dilute the moral certainty required for a conviction.