G.R. No. L-20089 - Wassmer vs. Velez

Accused-appellant Jaime Serdan y Gamayon was charged with murder on September 23, 1987 in Criminal Case No. 5630-MN before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila, Branch 72.
The prosecution alleged that on September 14, 1987, in Malabon, appellant, conspiring with four unidentified John Does and armed with a .45 caliber gun and other firearms, attacked Ricardo Sy y Co with evident premeditation and treachery, resulting in the victim’s death.

At around 7:30 a.m. on the day of the crime, witness Fortunato Piquiz, a long-time resident of Macopa Road, Potrero, Malabon, was walking along Gov. Pascual Avenue when he heard a gunshot.

Piquiz observed a gray colored car being fired upon by a gunman later identified as Jaime Serdan.
Two additional men, one with checkered shirts and another unidentified, joined in firing at the car from opposite directions.

Following the attack, the car slammed into a wall with witness Piquiz witnessing Serdan slumped and writhing in pain.
Two of Serdan’s companions intervened by approaching him, confiscating his gun, and then leaving the scene along with the other assailants.

After a lapse of four to five days, the police took his statement (Exh. A) and later conducted a hospital identification, in which he identified Jaime Serdan as one of the assailants.
His direct observation from a proximity of about seven (7) meters was highlighted as a key basis for identification despite minor inconsistencies later regarding the exact position of Serdan relative to the victim.

A resident of Gov. Pascual Street who was also near the scene, witnessed parts of the incident despite being a block away.
She observed a car collision and two men near the car with firearms, later identifying Serdan during court proceedings (Exh. B).

Pfc. Daniel Cruz of the Malabon Police located the victim, Ricardo Sy y Co, in the car with multiple gunshot wounds; three slugs and an empty shell were retrieved at the scene.
An ID card bearing Jaime Serdan’s name was found by the roadside, linking him to the scene.
Forensic examinations by Dr. Prospero Cabanayan and Forensic Chemist Nicanor Cruz confirmed that the victim sustained five gunshot wounds and that the nitrate tests on both of Serdan’s hands were positive, indicative of firing a gun with both hands.

He was at the corner of Gov. Pascual and Atis Road waiting for a friend from P.I. Manufacturing, Inc. to borrow money and was having breakfast in a nearby eatery.
Hearing gunshots and feeling struck by a gunshot (resulting in pain and dizziness), he recalled people running and later boarding him on a car.

Serdan was brought to MCU Hospital and later transferred to the National Orthopedic Hospital after complaining of pain and receiving treatment for a gunshot wound on his right leg.
During his confinement, interrogations and photographic procedures were conducted by law enforcement, including interactions with a policeman (Pfc. Belloga), which Serdan described with evident discomfort and disbelief.
Several hospital personnel and a co-worker testified regarding his identity, work background, and physical condition.

The trial court, after considering the testimonies of Piquiz, Tongco, and other witnesses, as well as the forensic evidence, found disposition in favor of the prosecution.
The lower court ruled Serdan guilty of murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment with accessory penalties, and ordered him to pay indemnity to the victim’s heirs.
On appeal, the accused challenged the credibility of prosecution witnesses and argued that his version of events, which disputed key prosecution evidence, was not adequately considered.

Whether the testimony of prosecution star witness Fortunato Piquiz, including his identification of the accused despite minor inconsistencies, is credible enough to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The conflicting nature of the defense’s evidence and whether it sufficiently undermines the credibility of Piquiz and Bernardita Tongco.

Whether the inconsistencies between the prosecution’s evidence (including physical evidence, forensic tests, and eyewitness accounts) and the accused’s story could create reasonable doubt.
The probative value of the identification card found at the scene and the positive nitrate tests on the accused’s hands which link him to the shooting.

Whether the imposition of life imprisonment was proper given that the crime of murder under the Revised Penal Code should warrant reclusion perpetua along with its accessory penalties.
The adequacy of the indemnity ordered to the victim’s heirs in light of the evidence presented.