G.R. No. 121683 - Bautista vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 121683)

Factual Background

On March 6, 1987, police officers were reportedly responding to activity at or near the Pasay Sports Complex, when Cpl. Garcia and several operatives heard someone shout “hold-up” and saw a man flee, later identified as Dizon. Pat. Isidro Ramasamy and Lt. Garfin ran after Dizon, while Cpl. Garcia commandeered a taxicab to intercept him. When they had cornered Dizon near Robert St. close to Libertad St., a man allegedly emerged from the Lopa Compound and aimed a shotgun at the officers. Lt. Garfin immediately identified themselves as policemen, but petitioner allegedly answered “E, ano kung pulis ka!” About twenty meters away, petitioner fired once, hitting Lt. Garfin. When Lt. Garfin fell, petitioner allegedly fired two more shots, with petitioner turning the gun on Cpl. Garcia when Cpl. Garcia attempted to render aid. In the ensuing confusion, Cpl. Garcia ducked and hid behind Dizon using Dizon as a shield. Dizon then escaped Cpl. Garcia’s hold and even told petitioner that his captors were holdup men. The taxi driver who had conveyed Cpl. Garcia and remained at the scene also shouted at petitioner, warning that he was shooting at police officers and insisting that the real holdup man was the man beside him. Dizon ran and petitioner shot him as well, hitting him in the back and left arm. Cpl. Garcia then returned to call for help.

Lt. Garfin was brought to the Manila Sanitarium Hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. The NBI autopsy attributed the cause of death to severe hemorrhage secondary to shotgun wounds. Ballistics examination showed that pellets recovered from Lt. Garfin matched the markings on test shells fired from petitioner’s shotgun. Paraffin testing was conducted on petitioner, the victim, two other guards, and a civilian agent; only petitioner tested positive for nitrates. Petitioner denied that he left the Lopa Compound during the shooting. He claimed that he heard something being chased outside, went to the Vito Cruz side of the compound fence to investigate, and took cover when he heard shots. He attributed his positive paraffin test to his alleged cleaning of firearms on March 6, 1987, and offered the testimony of security guard Anastacio Mangrubang to corroborate his claim of innocence.

Charges and Trial Proceedings

Following the incident, three criminal informations were filed against the alleged perpetrator. As of March 7, 1987, petitioner was charged with murder, attempted murder, and frustrated murder, with the three cases consolidated for trial. The prosecution relied on the eyewitness testimony of Cpl. Garcia and on physical evidence. After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 115, presided by Judge Sergio I. Amonoy, convicted petitioner of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, applied the indeterminate sentence law, and ordered reimbursement of certain amounts to the heirs of Lt. Garfin for funeral and related expenses and indemnity for the victim’s death. The trial court acquitted petitioner of the charges of frustrated murder for insufficiency of evidence.

Appellate Review and Issues Raised

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction but modified the award by deleting the amounts of P25,000.00, P15,000.00, and P30,000.00 awarded by the trial court. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on August 22, 1995. Before the Supreme Court, petitioner again insisted on his innocence and attacked the trial court’s factual findings, arguing that they contradicted the People’s evidence. He also invoked an affidavit of desistance executed by Lt. Garfin’s widow on March 16, 1989, claiming that this should have led to the dropping of the charges.

The Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner maintained that he never left the Lopa Compound during the night of the shooting. He also contended that the trial court wrongly relied on Cpl. Garcia, whose testimony, according to petitioner, allegedly changed at some point. Further, petitioner argued that the widow’s affidavit of desistance should have been considered in his favor, implying that the case should not have proceeded or should have been extinguished by that desistance.

The People, through the prosecution’s evidence as credited by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, relied on the positive identification by Cpl. Garcia and on corroborating physical evidence, including matching ballistic characteristics and the paraffin test results.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court reiterated its deference to the trial court’s factual findings, particularly in the absence of any cogent reason to disregard them. It treated Cpl. Garcia’s eyewitness account as highly credible. It noted that the witness was himself a victim of the shooting and had positively identified petitioner as the shooter in multiple instances. The Court held that petitioner’s defense of alibi and denial could not prevail over such a categorical and consistent identification, especially where there was no showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness. It further reasoned that the changes in Cpl. Garcia’s statement when he was recalled to the witness stand did not necessarily impair his earlier assertions, considering that he still had identified petitioner as the culprit on at least three occasions.

The Court also found petitioner’s explanation for the paraffin test result unconvincing. It held that petitioner’s assertion that he cleaned firearms that day was too coincidental to be believed, and that petitioner provided no persuasive answer to the evidence showing that pellets recovered from Lt. Garfin’s body matched the markings on petitioner’s service firearm. The Court addressed the argument that the prosecution did not present other witnesses and held that such absence was not fatal. It emphasized that criminal convictions are not based on the number of witnesses presented but on the credibility of testimony that convinces the court beyond reasonable doubt, and that the prosecution has discretion over the choice of witnesses.

On the affidavit of desistance, the Court ruled that it did not extinguish criminal liability in a murder prosecution. It treated murder as a public crime, committed not only against the victim but also against the State. It recognized that while a private prosecutor may handle a trial at times with the help of the public authorities, the fiscal or public prosecutor retains control of the proceedings. It found nothing in the record showing that the public prosecutor assented to the withdrawal sought by the private offended party. The Court held that the desistance did not f

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 121683)

The petitioner, Cornelio B. Bautista, sought review of his conviction for murder, insisting on factual error and claiming innocence.
The respondents were the Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines.
The Court affirmed the conviction, reiterated deference to the trial court’s credibility findings, and modified the damages and costs only as specified in the dispositive portion.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The petitioner was charged in three consolidated criminal cases for murder, attempted murder, and frustrated murder.
The Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 115, found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and acquitted him of frustrated murder for insufficiency of evidence.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the awards by deleting P25,000.00, P15,000.00, and P30,000.00 damages awarded to the heirs.
The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, maintaining his innocence and challenging the trial court’s factual findings.

Key Factual Allegations

The shooting occurred on the night of March 6, 1987 in front of the heavily guarded Lopa Compound at No. 2300 Robert St., Pasay City.
Lt. Franklin Garfin was slain during the incident, while his companion Cpl. Cesar Garcia escaped unharmed.
The intended arrest target, Joseph Williamson Dizon, was shot and sustained back and arm injuries.
The petitioner, a security guard on duty at the Lopa Compound the previous night, was allegedly the man who emerged from the compound, aimed a shotgun at the police operatives, and fired at them.
The prosecution evidence relied on the eyewitness testimony of Cpl. Garcia, corroborated by physical evidence including ballistics and paraffin tests.
The defense presented alibi/denial that the petitioner did not leave the Lopa Compound during the shooting and claimed that he investigated from the Vito Cruz side after hearing someone being chased.
The petitioner explained the positive nitrates result by stating that he cleaned their firearms on March 6, 1987.
The defense also presented Anastacio Mangrubang to corroborate the petitioner’s version of events.

Witness Account of the Shooting

Cpl. Garcia testified that he and other operatives responded to reports of a “pot session” at the Pasay Sports Complex and heard someone shout “hold-up.”
He testified that they saw a man fleeing, later identified as Dizon, and that Pat. Isidro Ramasamy and Lt. Garfin ran after Dizon while he commandeered a taxicab to intercept Dizon.
The testimony stated that the police cornered Dizon near Robert St. close to Libertad St.
Cpl. Garcia narrated that a man holding a shotgun suddenly emerged from the Lopa Compound and aimed his firearm at the police.
He testified that Lt. Garfin informed the man that they were policemen and that the man replied, “E, ano kung pulis ka!”
The witness stated that from about twenty meters, the petitioner fired once and hit Lt. Garfin, who fell to the ground.
He testified that the petitioner fired two more shots when Cpl. Garcia tried to aid his superior, and that the witness ducked and hid behind Dizon as a shield.
The account stated that Dizon escaped and even told petitioner that his captors were holdup men.
The testimony included that the taxi driver yelled to the petitioner that he was firing at police officers and that the real holdup man was beside him.
The witness testified that Dizon ran and was also shot by the petitioner, with wounds hitting Dizon’s back and left arm.
Cpl. Garcia further testified that the diversion enabled him to jump into the taxicab and call for help, and that when he returned, Cpl. Ricardo Santos was already speaking to persons at the Lopa Compound.
The testimony stated that Cpl. Santos pointed to the petitioner as the assailant and that the petitioner’s service firearm was confiscated upon arrest.
Lt. Garfin was pronounced dead upon arrival at the Manila Sanitarium Hospital, and an autopsy later attributed death to severe hemorrhage secondary to shotgun wounds.

Physical and Forensic Evidence

The autopsy report attributed Lt. Garfin’s death to severe hemorrhage secondary to shotgun wounds.
A ballistics examination showed that pellets recovered from Lt. Garfin’s body matched the markings on the test shells fired from the petitioner’s shotgun.
A paraﬃn test conducted by the NBI returned positive nitrates only for the petitioner among the persons subjected to the test.
The physical evidence was treated as corroborative of the eyewitness identification and as supporting the inference that the petitioner was the shooter.

Defense Theory and Explanations

The petitioner denied the charges and claimed he never left the Lopa Compound during the incid