Title
Aliling vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 230991
Decision Date
Jun 11, 2018
Jerry Tumbaga was shot in 2010; Hilario Aliling was convicted of Frustrated Murder but acquitted by the Supreme Court due to insufficient evidence, credible alibi, and inconsistent prosecution testimonies.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 230991)

Charges and Initial Proceedings

Hilario B. Aliling was charged with frustrate murder for allegedly shooting Jerry Tumbaga y Marasigan with an unlicensed firearm under qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. The complainant sustained gunshot wounds which incapacitated him for more than three months, but his life was saved due to timely medical intervention. Aliling was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and was granted bail.

Testimonies and Evidence at Trial

Prosecution's Case:

  • The primary witnesses, victim Jerry Tumbaga and his uncle Jesus Marasigan, identified Aliling as the shooter who fired twice without warning.
  • Jerry testified he was shot from behind while boarding his motorcycle. After the first shot, he turned and saw Aliling firing another shot. He was immediately taken to a hospital for surgery.
  • Jesus Marasigan corroborated witnessing the incident and Aliling fleeing on a motorcycle.
  • Medical expert Dr. Mark Louie M. Lanting provided testimony on the injuries sustained and issued a medico-legal certificate.

Defense's Case:

  • Aliling asserted an alibi that he was in Barangay Masalisi during the entire day and night of the incident campaigning for a political candidate.
  • He described his movements: campaigning through the day, attending a "miting de avance" (final campaign rally) until about midnight, then proceeding to the coordinator's house at Barangay Matingain. He rode his motorcycle only after leaving the coordinator’s house around 1:00 to 1:30 AM.
  • This alibi was supported by witnesses Adrian Cabral Atienza and Michael Perez Bathan. Atienza testified they campaigned together in Masalisi all day and night, including attending the miting de avance. Bathan, an impartial witness and relative to both parties, testified he saw the shooting and emphatically stated that the shooter was an unidentified man, not Aliling.
  • The defense further challenged the prosecution’s identification of the accused as inconsistent and unreliable.

Findings of the Trial Courts

The RTC found Aliling guilty of frustrated murder, giving more weight to the prosecution witnesses' positive identification over the defense's alibi and denial. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, stating that the defense witness did not know Aliling's whereabouts during the shooting.

Issues on Appeal

The key legal question was whether the appellate court erred in affirming the conviction despite the defense of alibi and eyewitness testimony negating Aliling’s presence at the crime scene.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Evidence and Presumption of Innocence

  • The Court underscored the constitutional presumption of innocence, which requires the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  • While positive identification generally carries weight over denial or alibi, the Court cautioned that denial and alibi defenses should not be dismissed outright as fabricated, especially when supported by credible and consistent testimony.
  • The accused's alibi must show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of the offense. In assessing alibi, consideration is given to the location, timing, and means of travel between places.
  • In this case, the Court found that Aliling's testimony about his whereabouts was straightforward, credible, and corroborated by Atienza, an impartial witness with no familial ties to either party.
  • The Court clarified that discrepancies cited by lower courts, such as Aliling’s use of his motorcycle, were illusory upon thorough examination of the testimony. Aliling consistently stated he left his motorcycle at the coordinator’s house before going home by service vehicle and later rode the motorcycle home past the incident time.

Contradictions and Inconsistencies in Prosecution’s Testimonies

  • The Court noted material contradictions between the testimonies of the victim and his uncle concerning the sequence of gunshots fired. The victim said there was a pause allowing him to turn and see the assailant, while the uncle testified the shots were fired in immediate succession.
  • This contradiction was significant as it impacted the victim’s ability to identify the shooter.
  • Moreover, the victim’s sworn statement that the assailant had a companion was retracted during trial, further undermining credibility.
  • These inconsistencies impinged upon the reliability of the prosecution evidence, diminishing its probative value.

Impact of Eyewitness Testimony Supporting Alibi

  • The Court emphasized the importance of Bathan’s testimony, who witnessed the incident and explicitly stated that A
...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms