A.M. No. 747-RET - IN RE: Martin

On November 19, 1993, at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening at Highway District, Poblacion, Merida, Leyte, a series of crimes occurred involving the assault and stabbing of three individuals: Reny Boy Casimero, Jose Cabanero, and Pedro Casimero.
The crimes allegedly ensued when appellants Lito and Jerry Limpangog, who had approached Pedro Casimero to hire his Yamaha motorcab, conspired to commit the offenses using a sharp pointed weapon.
During the incident, while negotiating for a motorcab ride and later dining at a well-lighted restaurant, tensions arose leading to a violent attack in a dark, isolated area along the highway.

Pedro Casimero, the motorcab driver, testified that after a failed negotiation over fare and subsequent boarding of his motorcab with another passenger (Jose Cabanero), the appellants attacked him and his cousin Reny Boy.

He reported that while he was distracted by a call and momentarily distracted by his own activities, Lito Limpangog was seen approaching him with a hunting knife.
Pedro sustained stab wounds on both the left and right scapular areas, and he described an alleged identifying tattoo on the left hand of one of the assailants.

Reny Boy Casimero recounted that while attempting to escape during the melee, he was stabbed at multiple sites including the left posterior axillary line, lateral thigh, and mid-clavicular line.
The testimonies were corroborated by physical evidence including:

Medical reports documenting the injuries on Pedro Casimero, Reny Boy Casimero, and Jose Cabanero.
A police report, certifications from the Chief of Police of both Merida and Isabel, Leyte, and evidence such as the abandoned tricycle tied to the incident.

On December 7, 1993, Pedro Casimero was called to identify the suspects, where he initially denied that the detained individuals, including Lito and Jerry Limpangog, were his assailants.
Later, during in-court proceedings on July 5, 1994, Pedro Casimero identified Lito Limpangog as one of the perpetrators by reference to a tattoo he allegedly observed on Lito’s left hand.

The appellants, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty during their arraignment and later at trial.

Lito Limpangog testified that on November 7, 1993, he was already in police custody in Matag-ob, Leyte, as a suspect in a separate stabbing incident, which contributed to his alibi.
Both Lito and his cousin Jerry contended that they were misidentified, especially noting that the tattoo which was crucial to the prosecution’s identification was only acquired by Lito after his arrest, as testified by a fellow inmate, Ronaldo Canete.

Pedro Casimero’s failure to identify them correctly when first presented shortly after the incident.
The gap between the early identification procedure in December 1993 and the in-court identification conducted several months later.

The defense argued that these inconsistencies cast doubt on the credibility of the eyewitness identifications and thus on the sufficiency of evidence against the appellants.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City, Branch 12, rendered its decision on September 15, 1994, convicting Lito and Jerry Limpangog of murder and frustrated murder based on:

The testimony of Pedro Casimero and corroborative but inconsistent elements from Reny Boy Casimero.
Consideration of nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.

The RTC found that the appellants had been sufficiently identified, particularly relying on the in-court identification of a tattoo, despite the earlier inconsistencies in witness testimony.
Subsequent events noted that appellant Jerry Limpangog died in detention on January 17, 1996, leading to the dismissal of criminal liabilities against him pursuant to Article 89 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.

Whether the identities of the perpetrators, particularly of appellant Lito Limpangog, were established beyond reasonable doubt given the conflicting identification evidence of Pedro Casimero and Reny Boy Casimero.
The impact of the delayed in-court identification versus the earlier identification attempt and the issue of the alleged tattoo, which was said to have been acquired after arrest.

Whether the inconsistent and arguably unreliable testimonies provided by the eyewitnesses (Pedro and Reny Boy Casimero) were sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder and frustrated murder.
Whether the absence of additional independent evidence substantiating the identification of the appellants undermined the prosecution’s case.

Whether the trial court erred in upholding nighttime as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crimes without clear evidence that such circumstance was exploited for the facilitation of the crimes.
The propriety of giving weight to nighttime in the absence of corroborative evidence proving its role in the criminal act.

Whether the crimes of murder and two counts of frustrated murder were established by the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the qualifying and aggravating circumstances required under the law.
Whether the evidentiary gap in proving any qualifying circumstance for murder necessitates acquittal due to reasonable doubt.