G.R. No. 137666 - People vs. Ortillas y Gamlanga

An Information was filed on January 6, 1995, before the Makati Regional Trial Court, Branch 255, for the crime of Murder.
The Information alleged that on December 21, 1994, in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, appellant Marlon Ortillas y Gamlanga, in conspiracy with an unidentified accomplice, attacked Jose Mesqueriola y Labarosa by throwing an explosive pillbox, which resulted in fatal injuries.
The offense was charged under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, with the additional element of explosion contributing to the determination of the crime.

Despite the Information’s title declaring appellant as a minor detained in the municipal jail, the trial court did not ascertain or verify his minority status or consider the applicability of P.D. No. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code).
After arraignment, where the appellant pleaded not guilty, the trial court dispensed with the pre-trial phase and proceeded directly to trial on the merits.
The prosecution’s evidence was primarily based on the direct testimony of an alleged eyewitness, Russel, and later, testimonial evidence from NBI Medico-Legal Officer Roberto Garcia.
The trial schedule experienced frequent postponements—from the hearing on June 8, 1995 (when Russel testified) until May 8, 1996—with multiple delays due to counsel’s conflicting engagements, medical conditions of the defense counsel, and the judge’s own absences.

Testified that he was present at the scene near a church and a plaza in Las Piñas when the pillbox exploded on the victim’s head.
Provided details regarding the location of the incident, including an estimate of about fifteen (15) meters distance, and identified the appellant through previous associations (e.g., classmates from high school and membership in rival fraternities).
However, his testimony lacked direct and precise identification, such as witnessing the act of throwing or holding the pillbox, making his account mainly circumstantial.

The appellant offered an alibi, stating that he was at his residence when the explosion occurred, but no corroborative testimony from witnesses was presented to substantiate this claim.
The defense argument further highlighted the possibility of misidentification due to longstanding personal conflicts and rivalry between fraternities.

Although the defense did not waive its right, the prosecution witness Russel was never effectively cross-examined.
Appellant’s counsel, initially Atty. de Leon and later Atty. Teresita Carandang-Pantua (of the Public Attorney’s Office), was repeatedly prevented from cross-examining Russel due to various postponements and judicial decisions.

The trial court noted appellant’s flight from detention on April 17, 1997, as indicative of a guilty conscience, although the appellant claimed his escape was motivated by other personal reasons such as boredom, the desire to see his newborn, and to look for his father.
The court’s findings by Judge Florentino M. Alumbres relied on both the prosecution’s narrative and select elements of the defense testimony (notably, to ascertain motive), despite the inherent weaknesses and inconsistencies in the evidentiary record.

The trial court’s failure to verify the appellant’s minority, despite available information and correspondence from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), constitutes a significant procedural lapse.
The numerous postponements and the absence of a proper waiver regarding cross-examination further underscore the irregularities affecting the fairness of the proceedings.

Whether the trial court erred in not ascertaining and verifying the appellant’s minority status and in disregarding the applicability of P.D. No. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code).

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defense, particularly Atty. Teresita Carandang-Pantua of the Public Attorney’s Office, the constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the prosecution witness, Russel.

Whether the trial court erred in giving undue weight to the testimony of prosecution witness Russel while disregarding the appellant’s testimony, thereby basing the conviction on weak circumstantial evidence.