Case Summary (G.R. No. 163217)
Prosecution’s factual presentation
The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony principally from the victim’s wife, Ernita, and neighbor Lito Santos, combined with the investigating officer’s report and medico-legal findings. The asserted facts: at about 6–7:30 p.m. on November 4, 1998, after Artemio had returned home and sat in front of his store, a gunshot was heard; Artemio staggered and shouted, “Help me p’re, I was shot by the captain.” Ernita testified she saw petitioner running away carrying a long firearm resembling an M-14; Lito heard the shout and saw smoke from the muzzle and Artemio collapse. Police were notified; petitioner was asked to accompany police and surrendered his M-14 rifle and was detained. Autopsy findings by Dr. Ledesma established a gunshot wound to the chest as cause of death, with trajectory and absence of powder burns indicating the shot was fired from a distance. Photographs and scene descriptions showed illumination from two fluorescent lamps and a full moon at the time.
Defense’s factual presentation and evidentiary points
Petitioner’s defense offered statements and witness testimony that he was roused from sleep by kagawads, assembled SCAA members, and proceeded toward the crime scene but left because the victim’s wife was belligerent. Petitioner voluntarily accompanied police and surrendered his government-issued M-14 rifle and submitted to paraffin testing, which returned negative for gunpowder nitrates. Defense witnesses described scene darkness and vegetation, challenged visibility, and one witness saw unidentified armed men flee but could not identify them. The police blotter initially described the assailant as “unidentified armed men.” Defense argued inconsistency between affidavits and testimony, unreliability of identification, and that the paraffin test and lack of recovered crime gun weakened the prosecution’s case.
Trial court and Court of Appeals findings
The RTC convicted petitioner for homicide. The CA affirmed the conviction, finding the prosecution witnesses credible and their testimony positive, credible, and consistent with scene conditions (illumination, familiarity of witnesses with petitioner). The CA rejected the defense alibi and denial as suspect and insufficient to overcome direct eyewitness identification and the victim’s statement. The CA also modified damages, awarding indemnity, actual damages, and other relief as supported by evidence.
Issues presented to the Supreme Court
Petitioner advanced four principal arguments: (1) miscrediting of prosecution witnesses and faulty positive identification; (2) impermissible shifting of burden to petitioner due to investigative lapses; (3) that the victim’s utterance was incomplete because death intervened, making dying declaration inapplicable; and (4) that petitioner’s alibi should prevail given alleged evidentiary gaps, including negative paraffin test and no recovered crime firearm.
Standard of review on factual findings
The Supreme Court applied the settled rule of deference: factual findings of trial courts are accorded great weight, particularly when affirmed by the CA. Disturbance of such findings requires demonstration of recognized exceptions (e.g., contradictory findings, speculation, grave abuse of discretion). The Court found no applicable exception in petitioner’s submissions and therefore began from the presumption of correctness of the lower courts’ factual findings.
Credibility and positive identification analysis
The Court analyzed Ernita’s and Lito’s accounts against scene conditions and concluded the witness identifications were reliable. Key points: (a) familiarity — Ernita knew petitioner as a neighbor and long-time barangay captain; (b) visibility — the place was illuminated by two fluorescent lamps and moonlight, and trunk/vegetation did not materially obstruct view; (c) contemporaneity — Ernita observed petitioner running away immediately after the gunshot and could describe clothing and firearm; (d) corroboration — Lito corroborated the timing and victim’s cry; (e) demeanor and lack of motive — courts found no convincing evidence that Ernita harbored ill motive to falsely accuse petitioner. The Court reiterated that conditions such as moonlight and artificial lighting can suffice for identification and that familiarity with the accused reduces the risk of misidentification.
Hearsay exceptions — dying declaration and res gestae
The Court considered the victim’s outcry, “Help me p’re, I was shot by the captain,” and held it admissible both as a dying declaration and as part of the res gestae. For dying declaration the Court applied the Rule 130 requisites: the statement related to cause and circumstances of death; it was uttered in the context of impending death (the surrounding facts and subsequent death allowed inference of consciousness of impending death); it was voluntary and offered in a prosecution for death; and the declarant was competent. For res gestae the Court found the declaration made immediately after a startling occurrence, without intervening opportunity for contrivance, and concerning the occurrence in question. The Court concluded the victim’s statement carried significant evidentiary weight as both exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Treatment of alleged inconsistencies and witness affidavits
The Court found the purported inconsistencies between affidavits and in-court testimony to be either illusory or immaterial. It explained that ex parte affidavits are often incomplete and that differences as to whether the victim was recognized by sight or voice did not undermine the identification of petitioner as the fleeing assailant. The Court emphasized trial courts’ superior opportunity to observe witness demeanor and assess credibility.
Sufficiency of evidence and circumstantial evidence framework
Assessing the totality of evidence, the Court concluded the prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It identified multiple proven facts: the gunshot and victim’s cry; eyewitness observations of petitioner fleeing with a rifle; the victim’s immediate accusation; corroborative statements; motive evidence (a disputed real estate transaction and antagonism); and medico-legal findings consistent with a fatal gunshot inflicted shortly after the events. The Court noted Rule 133’s standard for circumstantial evidence and affirmed that a combination of proven circumstances satisfied the requirement to produce moral certainty.
Negative paraffin test and lack of recovered crime gun
The Court addressed probative value of the negative paraffin test and the prosecution’s failure to produce the actual firearm used. It reiterated precedent that a negative paraffin test is not conclusive of non-involvement — nitrates can be absent due to gloves, handwashing, perspiration, or passage of time — and that failure to produce the weapon or laborat
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 163217)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Celestino Marturillas seeking to set aside:
- November 28, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 25401, and
- March 10, 2004 Resolution of the CA denying motion for reconsideration.
- CA had affirmed, with modifications as to damages, the Decision of Branch 10, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Davao City, which found petitioner guilty of homicide in Criminal Case No. 42,091-98.
- The Supreme Court considered petitioner’s Memorandum and respondent’s (People’s) Memorandum and deemed the case submitted for decision on May 30, 2005.
- Result at Supreme Court: Petition DENIED; CA Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED subject to modification in the award of damages; costs assessed against petitioner.
Charge and Information
- Information dated November 5, 1998 charged petitioner with homicide, alleging that on or about November 4, 1998 in Davao City, petitioner, “armed with a gun, and with intent to kill, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot one Artemio Pantinople, thereby inflicting fatal wound upon the latter which caused his death.”
- Information prepared by the City Prosecutor’s Office and signed by 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Raul B. Bendigo, approved by City Prosecutor Calixto A. Esparagoza.
Prosecution’s Case — Witnesses and Material Testimony
- Witnesses presented by the People: Lito Santos, Ernita Pantinople (wife of deceased), PO2 Mariano Operario (investigating officer), Alicia Pantinople (sister of deceased), and Dr. Danilo Ledesma (medico-legal officer).
- Lito Santos (neighbor and “kumpare”):
- Saw Artemio arrive about 6:00 p.m. on November 4, 1998; Artemio connected a battery to fluorescent lamps in his store and later sat on a bench with his three children.
- While Lito was eating in his open-type kitchen, he heard a gunshot; observed smoke and fire from the muzzle of a “big gun” from a distance of about ten (10) meters.
- Saw Artemio clasp his chest, stagger backward toward Lito’s kitchen, and shout, “Tabangi ko Pre, gipusil ko ni kapitan” (“Help me, Pre, I was shot by the captain”).
- Initially did not approach because his wife warned he might also be shot; later approached and found Artemio dead near a banana trunk about five (5) meters from his house.
- Testified that the place was illumined; trees (gemilina, coconut) and banana plants did not block his view.
- Ernita Pantinople (wife of Artemio):
- In kitchen preparing baby’s milk when she heard a gunburst followed by Artemio’s shout for help (same words as Lito heard).
- Peeped through kitchen window and saw petitioner wearing a black jacket and camouflage pants running toward the back portion of Lito’s house, crossing the street and disappearing; saw petitioner carrying a long firearm that looked like an M-14 rifle.
- Noted clear view due to full moon and two fluorescent lamps in Artemio’s store; immediately went out, found Artemio with mouth full of blood, called neighbors for help, and prevented anyone from touching the body until police arrived more than two hours later.
- PO2 Mariano Operario (investigating officer):
- Received report about 9:05 p.m. and arrived at scene around 10:00 p.m.; found Artemio’s body; Ernita and Lito identified petitioner as the assailant.
- Went to petitioner’s house, informed him he was a suspect, invited him to the police station; petitioner took his M-14 rifle and went with police; was detained the whole night and later transferred to Tibungco Police Station.
- Recovered an empty shell from the crime scene and indorsed it to the Bunawan PNP the following morning.
- Alicia Pantinople (sister of Artemio):
- Heard a gunshot while watching television; learned her uncle Titing was shot; went to crime scene and found Artemio dead surrounded by his children.
- Observed petitioner later reclining on a bench inside a locked room at the police station; confronted him and asked why he killed her brother; petitioner did not respond.
- Dr. Danilo Ledesma (medico-legal officer; Necropsy Report No. 76):
- Conducted autopsy on November 5, 1998 at about 9:30 a.m.; findings included:
- Entrance wound 0.9 x 0.8 cm ovaloid on anterior chest wall right side at level of 3rd intercostal space; trajectory backwards, upwards, medially, crossing midline, perforating sternum, pericardial cavity, heart and upper lobe of left lung; exit wound 1.5 x 1.1 cm posterior left chest wall.
- Hemopericardium 300 ml; left hemothorax 1,000 ml; stomach with partially digested food; marked pallor; body in rigor mortis.
- Cause of death: gunshot wound of the chest.
- Explained wound negative of powder burns indicating assailant was more than 24 inches away; no slug found in body indicating full through-and-through wound; trajectory suggested assailant in lower position than Artemio when fired.
- Conducted autopsy on November 5, 1998 at about 9:30 a.m.; findings included:
Defense’s Version of Facts and Evidence Presented by Petitioner
- Petitioner’s claimed account:
- Celestino Marturillas (then Barangay Captain of Gatungan) roused about 8:30 p.m. by Kagawads Jimmy Balugo and Norberto (Norman) Libre, learned Artemio had been shot, instructed them to assemble SCAA members, and proceeded with SCAA to the scene (approximately 250 meters away) to render assistance.
- Met Ernita, who angrily accused petitioner of having shot her husband; petitioner and companions backed off to avoid confrontation and returned to petitioner’s house.
- Instructed Kagawad Jimmy Balugo to contact the Bunawan Police Station (via Barangay San Isidro) for police assistance.
- PO2 Mariano Operario and another officer arrived, told petitioner he was a suspect and invited him to the police station; petitioner went voluntarily, took with him his government-issued M-14 rifle and turned it over to police for safe-keeping; police blotter entry indicated initially “unidentified armed men” as perpetrators.
- Submitted to paraffin testing on November 5, 1998; PNP Crime Laboratory Physical Sciences Report No. C-074-98 (November 6, 1998) found petitioner NEGATIVE for gunpowder nitrates on both hands.
- Defense witness testimony summarized:
- Jimmy Balugo and Norberto Libre corroborated petitioner’s account of being roused, assembling SCAA, proceeding toward the crime scene and being prevented from rendering assistance due to belligerence of the victim’s relatives.
- Ronito Bedero saw an unidentified armed man flee and later converge with two others near a nangka tree; could not identify them due to darkness; later saw petitioner and group approach and then return.
- Police Forensic Chemist Noemi Austero testified paraffin test on petitioner was negative and described laboratory procedures and limitations, including that paraffin testing is not done beyond 72 hours as a matter of procedure.
- Dominador Lapiz testified the crime scene was very dark and that Artemio’s store had no lighted fluorescent at the time; stated Lito Santos volunteered to police that petitioner was the assailant upon their arrival.
Trial Court and Court of Appeals Findings
- RTC (Branch 10, Davao City) found petitioner guilty of homicide (Criminal Case No. 42,091-98); judgment written by Judge Augusto Breva.
- CA, in CA-G.R. CR No. 25401, affirmed the RTC judgment with modification as to damages; statement of disposition: judgment AFFIRMED subject to modification; costs assessed against accused-appellant.
- CA’s principal factual and legal bases:
- Credited positive identification of petitioner by eyewitness Ernita as the person running away from the crime scene immediately after the gunshot.
- Accepted the victim’s utterance “Help me p’ re , I was shot by the captain” as either dying declaration and/or part of the res gestae.
- Rejected defenses of denial and alibi as necessa