Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27935)
Facts:
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Adly Hubilo (G.R. No. 101741, March 23, 1993), appellant Adly Hubilo was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of multiple murders and one count of frustrated murder. The incident occurred on August 18, 1988, in Barangay Paitan Sur, Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija. The prosecution's case was based on the information that Hubilo, intending to kill, treacherously ambushed and shot individuals riding on a tricycle, which included Rogelio Antonio, Hermogenia Cacayurin, Cesario Gamiz, and Ferdinand Gamiz.On that fateful afternoon, the victims were traveling towards their residence when they were suddenly fired upon. Rogelio Antonio, the driver, was immediately struck and fell off the vehicle. Ferdinand Gamiz managed to escape but was also shot by Hubilo, who was identified by Ferdinand, despite wearing a mask. After fleeing, Ferdinand received medical assistance while revealing the name of his assailant to witnesses and later to the police.
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27935)
Facts:
- Background of the Incident
- On 18 August 1988, around 5:00 p.m., Hermogenia Cacayurin, Cesario Gamiz, and Ferdinand Gamiz were riding a tricycle driven by Rogelio Antonio in Barangay Paitan Sur, Municipality of Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija.
- As the tricycle neared the cemetery of Nagcuralan, gunfire erupted. The driver, Rogelio Antonio, was hit and fell off the vehicle.
- The Shooting and Immediate Aftermath
- Ferdinand Gamiz, seated behind the driver, jumped off and fled in a northerly direction.
- He encountered an armed, masked man whose concealed face became visible when his handkerchief dislodged during the shooting; Ferdinand identified the assailant as Adly Hubilo, a known resident of Nagcuralan.
- Despite pleading for mercy, Ferdinand was shot near the right armpit by Hubilo.
- After firing, Hubilo attempted to pursue Ferdinand and concurrently tried to reload his weapon, but Ferdinand managed to escape.
- Ferdinand sought assistance from two local barangay tanods and was eventually transported by tricycle and then by ambulance to the municipal building and later to a hospital in Tarlac.
- Victims’ Condition and Medical Evidence
- Post shooting, Cesario Gamiz, Rogelio Antonio, and Hermogenia Cacayurin were found dead on the side of the road near the cemetery, sustaining multiple fatal gunshot wounds.
- Cesario sustained eight bullet wounds.
- Rogelio sustained three bullet wounds.
- Hermogenia sustained two bullet wounds.
- Ferdinand Gamiz, although gravely wounded, survived due to timely medical intervention by Dr. Manuel Alzate.
- Post-mortem examinations by Dr. Pilarcita Verde confirmed gunshot wounds as the cause of death in the deceased.
- Arrest, Identification, and Pre-Trial Proceedings
- On the morning of 19 August 1988, police went to Hubilo’s residence; Hubilo, along with his farm helper Bernardo Silapan, was taken into custody.
- A paraffin test conducted on both suspects at Camp Olivas yielded negative results for powder burns.
- A complaint for multiple murder with frustrated murder was filed on 22 August 1988 before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cuyapo.
- Ferdinand Gamiz identified Hubilo as his assailant when brought to the hospital and later during police interrogation by Patrolman Eddie Damaso.
- Subsequent procedural matters included:
- The filing of motions regarding bail and provisional liberty by Hubilo.
- The transfer of the case from the MTC to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimba, Nueva Ecija.
- A motion to fix bail on 17 October 1988 and its eventual denial after a motion for reconsideration.
- A motion to disqualify or inhibit the judge by Hubilo, which led to temporary self-inhibition but eventual return of the case to Judge Annang.
- A petition for certiorari regarding errors on bail and case management which was dismissed on technical grounds.
- A motion for preliminary investigation filed by Hubilo at the trial court that was denied.
- Hubilo was finally arraigned on 9 November 1989, where he pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial on the merits.
- Evidence and Testimonies Presented at Trial
- The prosecution relied heavily on the eyewitness testimony of Ferdinand Gamiz, including his dying declaration (ante mortem statement) which was taken in an ambulance shortly after the shooting.
- Testimonies and forensic evidence included:
- The PC Crime Laboratory Service’s findings regarding the absence of gunpowder residue on Hubilo’s hands.
- Dr. Manuel Alzate’s medical report which provided details on the trajectory of the bullet wound on Ferdinand.
- Inconsistencies noted between Ferdinand’s description of the firearm and the shells recovered from the scene.
- Hubilo presented an alibi, asserting that he had spent most of 18 August 1988 with relatives in Sinimbaan – a locality approximately 30 minutes away from Nagcuralan – and left only around 5:30 p.m.
- The trial court gave considerable weight to the consistent and repeated identification of Hubilo by Ferdinand Gamiz despite minor inconsistencies in testimonies.
Issues:
- Preliminary Investigation and Due Process
- Whether the trial court erred in denying Hubilo’s motion for preliminary investigation, which is a substantive due process right, notwithstanding his being deemed to have waived the right by proceeding to trial and applying for bail.
- Admissibility of the Dying Declaration
- Whether Ferdinand Gamiz’s ante mortem statement, taken an hour after the shooting while he was wounded, qualifies as an admissible exception to the hearsay rule by forming part of the res gestae.
- Forensic Evidence Concerning Gunpowder Residue
- Whether the absence of gunpowder residue on Hubilo’s hands (as evidenced by the paraffin test and findings of the PC Crime Laboratory Service) should negate the inference that he discharged a firearm.
- Credibility and Consistency of Witness Testimony
- Whether the inconsistencies in Ferdinand Gamiz’s account, particularly regarding the identified points of bullet entry and exit as well as his description of the firearm, undermine his credibility as a lone eyewitness.
- Assessment of the Alibi Defense
- Whether Hubilo’s alibi, based solely on the testimony of himself and his relatives, was sufficient to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.
- Overall Evaluation of the Evidence and Conviction
- Whether the trial court erred in its findings by relying heavily on positive, repeated identifications by Ferdinand Gamiz and by characterizing the crime as multiple (triple) murder with frustrated murder based on separate shots.
- Whether the trial court improperly disregarded evidence or misinterpreted the forensic and testimonial discrepancies presented by the defense.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)