G.R. No. L-29129 - People vs. Mabuyo

On June 18, 1966, at about midnight, Norberto Anillo was shot dead at the doorstep of his house in Bo. Ambulong, Tanauan, Batangas.
A police team, headed by Lt. Roque Garcia (Deputy Chief of Police of Tanauan), immediately arrived at the crime scene and conducted an investigation.
Fifteen empty carbine shells were recovered from the premises, and through a post mortem examination conducted by Dr. Francisco M. Garcia, it was determined that the victim sustained eleven gunshot wounds.
The victim’s relatives, Agaton Anillo (father) and Adelaida Mirania (widow), initially declined to identify the assailants when interviewed by Lt. Garcia but later fulfilled their promise by providing statements to the police.

On June 20, 1966, following the interment of Norberto Anillo, Agaton Anillo and Adelaida Mirania went to the police department and formally identified Domingo Mabuyo as the triggerman, also alluding to a certain Juan Mendoza as the instigator.
A complaint for murder was filed on June 21, 1966, in the Municipal Court of Tanauan against both Mendoza and Mabuyo.
After a finding of probable cause, arrest warrants were issued; however, Domingo Mabuyo could not be located at that time.
Juan Mendoza later waived his right to the second stage of the preliminary investigation, and the case was referred to the Court of First Instance of Batangas.
Mabuyo, having earlier been provided a bail bond (P30,000.00) and waived his right to the further preliminary investigation, eventually presented himself on March 27, 1967, which led to the elevation of the case for further proceedings against him.

The trial against Mabuyo began with the sole charge as the principal murderer by inducement after the acquittal of Juan Mendoza in a prior criminal case.
The prosecution presented critical eyewitness testimonies:

The widow, Adelaida Mirania, testified that at about midnight on June 18, 1966, while she was reading in bed, she heard sounds suggestive of a struggle and observed, with her kerosene lamp in hand, Domingo Mabuyo firing at her husband.
Aniceto Sumarraga, a resident of Bo. Ambulong, recounted that Mabuyo had visited his house and inquired if he would assist in killing Norberto Anillo.
Agaton Anillo testified that he heard gunshots near his son’s house and, upon rushing over, found that Norberto had been killed; he also added that his son had earlier confided a plot in which Mabuyo was to be involved and that he personally saw Mabuyo lurking near the scene.

Domingo Mabuyo asserted that he was not in Tanauan on the night of the crime but rather in Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija:

He claimed he left Bo. Ambulong on June 3, 1966, to work in a logging concession in Gabaldon under Vice-Mayor Isabelo Aquino and did not return until March 27, 1967.
According to his account, he was detained in the Gabaldon municipal jail for drunkenness on the evening of June 18, 1966, and was released the following morning.

Vice-Mayor Isabelo Aquino testified corroborating the employment of Mabuyo, providing documentary payroll evidence and a time book which placed him in Gabaldon during a substantial period from June to November 1966.
Gabaldon Police Chief Francisco Gamit confirmed through the police blotter that Mabuyo was detained on June 18, 1966; however, discrepancies in the recording of the time of detention and release raised questions regarding the veracity of the alibi.
Atty. Juan Mendoza’s testimony further supported the claim that Mabuyo was in Gabaldon until he voluntarily surrendered on March 27, 1967.
The trial, however, scrutinized these alibi inconsistencies, including the alleged fabrication of the jail records, payroll entries, and the improbability of Mabuyo not visiting his home for several months.

Whether the variance between the place of commission stated in the information (Bo. Bagumbayan) and the actual location where the murder was committed (Bo. Ambulong) constitutes a reversible error.
Whether the location is an essential element of the offense charged, affecting the validity of the prosecution’s claim.

Whether the appellant’s alleged denial of the right to a preliminary investigation is valid, considering that he waived the right to the second stage of such investigation as evidenced by the Municipal Court order dated March 27, 1967.

The weight that should be given to the identification testimonies of Agaton Anillo, Adelaida Mirania, and Aniceto Sumarraga against the appellant, especially in light of their earlier inconsistent or selective accounts in the related case involving Juan Mendoza.
Whether inconsistencies in the witness testimonies against Mendoza necessarily impugn their identification of Mabuyo as the actual triggerman.

Whether the presented alibi — that Mabuyo was in Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija at the time of the crime and detained there for drunkenness — holds credibility, given the conflicting documentary evidence and testimonies.
Whether the discrepancies in the Gabaldon police blotter and payroll records undermine the alibi sufficiently to affirm the conviction.