G.R. No. 73642 - Gil vs. People

Accused-appellant Deogracias Jalon, along with co-accused Tadios Magsalos, was charged with the murder of Pelarito Abujan in Criminal Case No. 6902 before the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 21.
The murder offense was alleged to have been committed on May 28, 1986, in Cagayan de Oro City, with specific aggravating circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, and the use of a firearm.
Appellant was arrested on October 27, 1986, and upon arraignment on November 26, 1986, he pleaded not guilty.
The co-accused, Tadios Magsalos, was later arrested in June 1988 but his charge was dismissed due to a lack of prima facie evidence against him.

The murder occurred in Barangay Baikingon, Cagayan de Oro City, where the victim, Pelarito Abujan, sustained gunshot wounds to the head and neck, leading to his immediate death.
The victim was reportedly on his way to a dance hall when he was ambushed along a banana plantation situated on the route.
Multiple bursts of gunfire were heard, and witness accounts described a sequence of events where the victim was first struck by a shot and then fatally wounded soon after.

Prosecution witnesses Allan Gamlot and Eddie Apus testified that they observed appellant emerging from the banana plantation with an unidentified companion carrying a firearm.
The testimonies detailed that shortly after the shots were fired, the accused was seen fleeing the scene, a fact which the trial court interpreted as indicative of guilt.
However, notable inconsistencies emerged:

Gamlot and Apus provided divergent accounts regarding details such as the exact timing, the distance from the scene, and even the number of individuals armed.
There were contradictions in the narratives—for instance, differences in how soon after the gunshots the accused was seen and the description of how many were carrying firearms.

Additional issues arose from the delayed and inconsistent reporting of testimony by Apus, as well as a conflicting report from Police Corporal Eleuterio Cabigon, who indicated that a different individual (Gaudencio Jalon) was implicated.

Appellant asserted an alibi, contending that at the time of the incident he was at the residence of his employer, Engineer Romualdo Gaylo, located in Carmen, approximately 12 kilometers away from Barangay Baikingon.
Engineer Gaylo corroborated this claim by testifying that the accused was present at his house acting as a watchman on the night in question.
Testimony further highlighted that the time needed to travel between Carmen and Barangay Baikingon would have rendered the accused’s presence at the scene impossible, thereby supporting his alibi.

The trial court, after extensive review of the circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies, found appellant guilty of murder qualified by treachery.
The conviction was primarily based on the circumstantial evidence pieced together from the testimonies of Gamlot, Apus, and the conduct of the accused (including his flight from the scene).
Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment (in line with the penalty of reclusion perpetua under the Revised Penal Code), ordered to pay indemnity to the victim’s heirs, and imposed with accessory penalties.
The trial court emphasized that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must leave no room for reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s guilt.

Relying predominantly on unreliable and contradictory testimonies that could not conclusively identify him as the murderer.
Overlooking the defense of alibi which was well corroborated by credible evidence contradicting the prosecution’s timeline.

The appellate review scrutinized the trial court’s favorable assessment of the circumstantial evidence and identified material inconsistencies—particularly in the accounts of witnesses Gamlot and Apus—that undercut the prosecution’s case.
It was noted that the testimonies suffered from discrepancies regarding critical aspects such as the precise location, timing of the events, and the identities and actions of the individuals involved.

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution constituted an unbroken, reliable chain of evidence establishing the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Consideration of inconsistencies and contradictions in the witness testimonies, especially those of Allan Gamlot and Eddie Apus.
Evaluation of whether the sequence of events as reconstructed by the prosecution could reasonably exclude other possibilities.

Analysis of the credibility and consistency of the alibi provided by the accused, corroborated by his employer, Engineer Romualdo Gaylo.
Assessment of the geographical and temporal factors which made it physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene.

Whether the identification of the accused as the offender was reliable given the conflicting witness accounts and the presence of alternative suspect indications (e.g., the testimony from Police Corporal Cabigon identifying Gaudencio Jalon).