G.R. No. 251537 - Spouses Ansok vs. Tingas

On September 30, 1999, at 11:30 p.m., while Apolinario Mirabueno y Morao was asleep in his home in Sitio Waray, Barangay Plaza Aldea, Tanay, Rizal, an unknown individual was observed moving near the house.
The victim’s fourteen-year-old brother, Leo, was awakened by the sound of rustling dried leaves outside the house. He saw a solitary figure approach the house, remove the fish net covering the window, and peer inside using the light of a fluorescent lamp.
Recognizing the man as Cornelio Cajumocan (the appellant), Leo witnessed the accused draw a gun and deliberately shoot Apolinario in the head, after which the appellant fled the scene.

The victim, Apolinario Mirabueno y Morao, sustained a fatal gunshot wound. Autopsy findings by Dr. Emmanuel Reyes indicated an open gunshot wound on the front part of the head, with an entry point located 3–4 centimeters above the left eyebrow and an exit wound at the back of the head.
The physical evidence documented included the detailed measurements of the wound, the location relative to anatomical landmarks, and the conclusion that the injury resulted in intracranial hemorrhage which directly caused instantaneous death.
Testimony and forensic science established that the bullet damage involved both cerebral hemispheres, confirming the lethality of the wound.

The appellant, employed as a security guard by AFSLAI Security Service, was on duty at the Cruz property in Sitio Bathala, Plaza Aldea, Tanay, Rizal, at the time of the incident.
Ernesto Carpo, an inspector and investigator for AFSLAI, testified that he regularly inspected the security detachments and verified that the appellant’s tour of duty started at 7:00 p.m. and ended at 7:00 a.m. on the day of the crime.
Carpo further confirmed through logbook evidence that the appellant was indeed on duty during the period when the crime was committed, though the location of his assignment (approximately one kilometer from the scene) did not preclude his access to the locus criminis.

The prosecution relied heavily on the lone eyewitness, Leo Mirabueno, whose detailed and direct identification of the appellant pointed to his presence at the scene during the commission of the crime.
The appellant testified that after arriving at the Cruz property, he signed in at the outpost, secured equipment in the bodega, returned to the outpost to watch television, and later signed out at 7:00 a.m. Furthermore, he claimed to have been invited to the police station by local authorities for questioning and subsequently underwent a paraffin test, which showed negative findings for powder burns.
The paraffin test, conducted the day following the incident, was produced by the defense to support his denial of having fired a gun, although it was later deemed inconclusive.

The appellant was charged with Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 99-3576-M, with allegations that he acted with intent to kill, treachery, and evident premeditation.
The trial court found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to suffer reclusión perpetua.
Additionally, the trial court ordered the appellant to pay civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 and actual damages of P50,000.00, accompanied by court costs.
The appellant raised several issues on appeal, challenging the reliance on the eyewitness testimony, the interpretation of the paraffin test’s negative results, the qualification of treachery, and the acceptance of his alibi and denial claims.

Whether the negative findings from the paraffin test, which was intended to detect powder burns (gunpowder nitrates), could be conclusively interpreted as proof of the appellant’s innocence.
The reliability and admissibility of the paraffin test as corroborative evidence in establishing whether the appellant had fired a weapon.

Whether the means of execution in the killing—specifically the stealth and deliberate attack on a sleeping and unarmed victim—constituted treachery as a qualifying circumstance under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the elements of treachery, namely the use of a method that denies the victim any opportunity to defend themselves and the deliberate nature of the attack, were met in the present case.

Whether the appellate court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of Leo Mirabueno, despite his relationship to the victim, and whether such relationship should have diminished his credibility as a witness.
Whether the appellant’s claim of denial and alibi were sufficient to raise reasonable doubt, considering the physical proximity between his place of duty and the scene of the crime.