G.R. No. 90254 - People vs. Florida y Cepeda

On February 13, 1988, Technical Sergeant Paquito S. Ravelo was fatally shot at the corner of Gumamela and Ilang-Ilang Streets in Lower Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila.
The victim sustained gunshot wounds to the head and trunk and was pronounced dead on arrival at Camp Bagong Diwa Hospital.
Witnesses immediately identified Bernardino Galvante and Carlos Florida y Cepeda as the assailants.

On March 16, 1988, an Information was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig charging Carlos Florida y Cepeda with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Bernardino Galvante was separately charged with murder before the Judge Advocate General’s Office, given his status as a military officer at the time of the crime.
Upon arraignment on March 29, 1988, the accused, represented by counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty.

Multiple prosecution witnesses—Tito Villanueva, Luzviminda Ravelo, Wilfredo Caambay, Dr. Desiderio Moraleda, Franklin Tating, Jeffrey Torres, and Vicente Deyro—provided detailed testimonies regarding the incident.
Testimonies described the sequence of events: the victim’s movements, the act of shooting by Galvante followed by Florida’s subsequent shots, and the immediate aftermath witnessed by those present.
Forensic evidence, including the medico-legal autopsy report and recovery of high-powered weapons, supported the witness accounts.

The accused testified in his own defense, asserting an alibi that he was at the house of Isauro Floriano—a location estimated to be five (5) kilometers away from the crime scene.
Defense witnesses, notably Dawnmarie Genovea and Isauro Floriano, were presented to corroborate this alibi, although inconsistencies appeared in their accounts.
The defense also raised issues regarding the lack of ballistics examination and questioned whether the absence of a confiscated firearm could affect the prosecution’s case.

On July 26, 1989, the trial court rendered its decision finding Carlos Florida y Cepeda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by treachery.
The court sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua, imposing accessory penalties including indemnity to the victim’s heirs, burial expenses, and moral damages.
Notably, the trial court committed a minor error by recording eight gunshot wounds when, in fact, the victim sustained only four; however, this did not affect the substantive ruling.

The accused filed a motion for reconsideration/new trial, which was denied by the trial court.
On appeal, the accused raised three primary issues:

The alleged disregard by the trial court of Dawnmarie Genovea’s eyewitness testimony.
The sufficiency and credibility of his alibi, supported by disinterested witnesses.
The contention that the absence of confiscated firearms and a ballistics examination should have undermined the prosecution’s case.

The appellate court scrutinized the record, reaffirming the trial court’s findings on witness credibility and the overall circumstantial evidence, while noting the insignificant error on the number of gunshot wounds.

Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the testimony of witness Dawnmarie Genovea, whose account was seen as inconsistent and too sketchy compared to the detailed narratives of other witnesses.

The accused contended that a fuller consideration of her testimony might have supported his innocence.

Whether the defense’s alibi, which placed the accused at a residence five kilometers away from the crime scene and was corroborated by Isauro Floriano, was sufficient to create physical impossibility of his presence at the scene.

The issue centered on whether the distance and the timing rendered his involvement implausible.

Whether the absence of ballistics evidence—stemming from no firearm being confiscated from the accused—constituted a reversible error that should have affected the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.

The accused argued that without such evidence, his conviction should not stand as proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the minor discrepancy regarding the number of gunshot wounds (recorded as eight instead of four) materially affected the trial court’s conclusions and the overall determination of guilt.