G.R. No. 135087 - Heirs of Suguitan vs. City of Mandaluyong

Accused-appellant Rene Rosas was charged with the crime of Murder in an Information dated October 13, 1998.
The alleged crime occurred on September 15, 1995, in the Municipality of Kabakan, Cotabato, where Rosas, armed with a gun, is accused of shooting Nestor Estacio with treachery.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabacan, Cotabato, Branch 22, rendered a decision in Criminal Case No. 98-105 finding Rosas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00301 on November 29, 2006, with minor modifications regarding the award of damages.
Accused-appellant elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a notice of appeal, which was docketed as G.R. No. 177825.

Around 11 o’clock in the morning on September 15, 1995, Antonio Palomar Bataga, Jr. observed Rosas nearby a post, with Rosas identified from prior acquaintance related to gambling activities.
Nestor Estacio, the victim, approached on his motorcycle, stopped to purchase a newspaper, and was subsequently blocked by a bus, which set the stage for the incident.
Rosas, approaching from behind, fired a pistol at close range at Estacio, inflicting multiple gunshot wounds that eventually led to the victim’s instantaneous death.
Additional gunshots were fired after the victim fell, ensuring his death. Rosas then allegedly escaped on a motorcycle.
Wilfredo Bataga, the carinderia owner and commanding officer of the 39th Infantry Battalion, witnessed Rosas fleeing the scene and identified him positively as he carried a 45-caliber pistol.

Prosecution witnesses included Dr. Crisostomo Necessario, Jr. (Municipal Health Officer), Wilfredo Bataga (witness and police figure), Antonio Palomar Bataga, Jr. (witness with personal acquaintance with Rosas), and Arceli Estacio (widow of the victim).
The medical report by Dr. Necessario established that the victim sustained gunshot wounds in the lumbar, epigastric, and hypogastric areas, with death attributed to hypovolemic shock.
Witness testimonies unanimously identified Rosas as the shooter despite minor discrepancies in the narrative details regarding his mode of escape.

Rosas testified that on the morning of the crime he was at his boarding house along USM Avenue in Kabacan, Cotabato.
His alibi was corroborated by his girlfriend, Karen Nayona, who stated that he was at the boarding house and later joined her at a fastfood restaurant along the same street.
Rosas contended that he was not present at the crime scene and questioned the consistency and credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

The trial court rendered its decision on February 1, 2001, convicting Rosas of Murder, with additional orders for Rosas to indemnify the heirs of the victim for civil, moral, exemplary, and temperate damages.
Accused-appellant’s appeal cited two errors:

That his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
That the alleged qualifying circumstance of treachery was not specifically alleged in the Information pursuant to Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

The evidence on record established that the distance between Rosas’s alleged alibi at USM Avenue and the crime scene (a public market and terminal) was minimal and easily traversable within 10 to 15 minutes.

P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the victim’s heirs.
P50,000.00 as moral damages.
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for burial expenses, following the doctrine established in People v. Abrazaldo.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Rene Rosas as the perpetrator of the murder of Nestor Estacio.
Whether the inconsistencies between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the mode of escape (jumping on a motorcycle versus running) adversely affected their credibility and identification of Rosas.

Whether the Information’s failure to explicitly precede the qualifying circumstance of treachery with adjectives such as “qualifying” or “qualified by” renders the conviction of murder invalid.

Whether the accused’s alibi, supported by his claim of being at his boarding house during the time of the incident, was proven by clear and convincing evidence to establish physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene.