Case Summary (G.R. No. 157610)
Petitioner and Respondent
Appellant/Defendant on appeal: Pablo Adoviso. Appellee/Plaintiff in the prosecution: People of the Philippines (prosecution in the criminal cases).
Key Dates and Procedural History
Offenses charged: evening of February 18, 1990. Trial court Joint Judgment convicting appellant of two counts of Murder: rendered March 25, 1994. Supreme Court decision on appeal: June 23, 1999. Trial court imposed reclusion perpetua for each count and awarded P50,000.00 civil indemnity to the heirs in each case.
Applicable Law and Legal Standards
Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post‑1990). Substantive criminal law: Revised Penal Code (treachery as qualifying circumstance — Art. 14(16), RPC). Evidentiary and procedural principles applied: standards governing eyewitness identification (visibility, familiarity, bias), rules on the weight and admissibility of polygraph evidence (recognized as unreliable and not entitled to conclusive weight), and requirements for a successful alibi (proof of physical impossibility of presence at crime scene). The decision cites controlling precedents contained in the record regarding illumination, witness reaction to startling events, and polygraph unreliability.
Factual Narrative (Prosecution Version)
The Vasquez family occupied two adjacent houses in Sitio Tan‑agan, Barangay Casugad, Bula, Camarines Sur; one structure (a camalig) served as both a living area and rice storage and had bamboo slat walls placed horizontally about four to six inches apart. At about 8:00 p.m. on February 18, 1990, while Rufino was sleeping on a papag inside the camalig and Emeterio was drinking coffee near stairs with a kerosene (gas) lamp, gunshots were fired. Rufino and Emeterio were shot and later died the next morning. Bonifacio and Elmer observed assailants from yard positions: Bonifacio hid behind a coconut tree about eight meters away and, looking through the bamboo slats, identified appellant as one of the shooters; Elmer saw five persons shoot Rufino and recognized appellant among them (appellant unmasked and carrying a long firearm wrapped in a sack). The assailants fled after firing.
Eyewitness Identification Evidence
Bonifacio testified that he recognized appellant (large build, long hair) by appearance under the lighting conditions and the illuminated camalig; only appellant among the shooters was unmasked. Elmer corroborated seeing multiple shooters and appellant among them; both witnesses had prior acquaintance with appellant (Bonifacio for ten years; Elmer for four years). Bonifacio initially did not immediately identify appellant to the police out of fear of appellant as a CAFGU member and potential escape; later in follow‑up investigation he stated he “vividly saw” and recognized appellant.
Medical/Forensic Evidence
Medical certifications from the Bicol Regional Hospital were introduced. Rufino (35 years old) died of four gunshot wounds (inguinal area, sacral area, thigh, abdomen), with contusion collars on two wounds. Emeterio (88 years old) sustained seven gunshot wounds in various abdominal, lumbar and arm locations; several wounds bore contusion collars. Both victims were transported to hospital alive but died early the next morning.
Defense Case: Alibi, Denial, and Polygraph
Appellant asserted an alibi: he claimed to have been at Sitio Burabod, Palsong (about one kilometer from CAFGU headquarters) from about 7:00 p.m. until past 11:00 p.m., drinking at the store of Honoria Tragante with named companions (Tragante, Francisco Bislombre, PFC Antero Esteron). These witnesses corroborated his drinking‑spree testimony. The defense also presented a police certification initially describing the perpetrators as “unidentified armed men.” A polygraph examination by an NBI examiner produced results indicating no specific physiological reactions indicative of deception to pertinent questions; the defense urged weight be given to this result.
Trial Court Disposition and Sentencing
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 31, Camarines Sur) found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Murder (Criminal Case Nos. P‑2079 and P‑2080) and imposed reclusion perpetua for each count plus accessory penalties and P50,000.00 civil indemnity in favor of heirs of each victim.
Issues on Appeal
Appellant challenged primarily: (1) the sufficiency and credibility of eyewitness identification given alleged poor lighting and obstructive bamboo slats; (2) the adequacy of the alibi and defenses; and (3) the probative value of the polygraph test and whether the conviction rested on conjecture.
Supreme Court Analysis — Visibility and Identification
The Court reiterated the settled rule that when visibility conditions are favorable and witnesses appear unbiased, their identification of the malefactor should generally be accepted. Illumination from kerosene lamps can be sufficient for identification; wick lamps or similar light sources may under proper circumstances allow identification. The Court examined trial testimony and concluded that two gas lamps illuminated the scene (one inside the camalig and one carried by Emeterio as he descended) and that the trial record showed the lamp inside the camalig was on the floor at the time of the shootings (a can was placed over it only after the victims were taken to the hospital). The bamboo slats did not effectively obstruct the witnesses’ view given spacing. The Court also emphasized the witnesses’ prior acquaintance with appellant, finding familiarity reduced the risk of misidentification. The delay in Bonifacio’s initial identification was credibly explained by fear of appellant (as a CAFGU member armed with a gun) and the natural varied reactions of witnesses to shocking events; the Court found this did not impair his credibility.
Supreme Court Analysis — Alibi and Physical Impossibility
The Court applied the rule that an alibi succeeds only if the defendant proves not merely that he was elsewhere but that it was physically impossible for him to have been present at the crime scene. The Court found appellant’s alibi inherently weak: the situs of the alleged alibi and the cri
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157610)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- Decision reported at 368 Phil. 297, First Division, G.R. Nos. 116196-97, decided June 23, 1999.
- Appeal from the Joint Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Camarines Sur, rendered by Judge Martin P. Badong, Jr.
- Appellant: Pablo Adoviso; Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
- Appellant was originally charged along with four unidentified persons who remained at large.
- The trial court rendered a joint conviction on March 25, 1994, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of murder (Criminal Case Nos. P-2079 and P-2080).
- This appeal challenges primarily the identification of appellant by eyewitnesses and the sufficiency of the defense evidence (alibi, polygraph).
Informations and Charged Offenses
- Criminal Case No. P-2079 charged appellant with the murder of Rufino Agunos, alleging occurrence on or about February 18, 1990, at about 8:00 p.m., at Sitio Tan-agan, Barangay Casugad, Municipality of Bula, Camarines Sur.
- Allegations: appellant, while armed with assorted long firearms, conspiring and mutually helping one another with intent to kill, and with treachery and evident premeditation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot Rufino Agunos several times, the wounds being the direct and immediate cause of death.
- The information expressly stated that the crime complained of was not service connected.
- Criminal Case No. P-2080 contained the same allegations except for the name of the victim — charging the killing of Emeterio Vasquez.
Facts as Found by the Prosecution at Trial
- Location and affected structures:
- The spouses Emeterio and Anastacia Vasquez had two adjacent houses in Sitio Tan-agan; one house was a camalig used to store harvested rice and preferred for living because it was cooler.
- The camalig's living area had bamboo walls called salsag and was elevated; three steps led down to an awning (suyab) walled with horizontal bamboo slats placed approximately four to six inches apart.
- A portion of the awning served as a kitchen and another portion had a papag where Rufino Agunos (the grandson) slept when tending the irrigation pump.
- The Vasquez son Bonifacio lived in the other house about eight meters from the camalig with his son Elmer.
- Sequence of events on the evening of February 18, 1990:
- At around 8:00 p.m., Emeterio was preparing coffee as Anastacia prepared to retire; Rufino was asleep in the papag.
- Anastacia had just finished spreading the sleeping mat when she heard three or four gunshots; Emeterio exclaimed that he had been shot.
- Anastacia observed a "protruding edge of the gun" on the wall near the stairs where Emeterio descended; a lamp near the stairs illuminated the camalig but she failed to recognize the shooters.
- Bonifacio heard the shots while in the bigger house after leaving Rufino snoring in the papag; he hid behind a coconut tree in the dark portion of the yard and observed from about eight meters away.
- Bonifacio saw Rufino being shot by several persons from the outside through the bamboo slats; he recognized one assailant, appellant Pablo Adoviso, by appearance (large build, long hair) because of the gas lamp lighted inside the camalig; appellant alone among the assailants was not masked.
- Appellant was holding a long firearm wrapped in a sack with the muzzle protruding and directed at Rufino; appellant fired and hit Rufino.
- Emeterio went down the stairs with a gas lamp; appellant fired again hitting Emeterio in the stomach.
- Elmer, who rushed toward the camalig with his father, saw five persons aiming firearms; except for appellant, the others had their faces covered. Three were in a ditch near the camalig; two were near the door.
- Elmer saw the five persons shoot Rufino (who crawled under the papag) and shoot Emeterio (who managed to go up the camalig). When Elmer and Bonifacio were seen, appellant and his companion by the door fired at Elmer; the three others escaped to the banana plantation; Elmer fled to the coconut plantation.
- Upon returning, Elmer found Rufino at the foot of a coconut tree near the river; Rufino indicated he had been hit and showed Elmer his back wound.
- Bonifacio fetched the police at the municipal building of Bula; Inspector Antonio Lopez and SPO1 Claro Ballevar returned to the scene and brought Emeterio and Rufino to the municipal hall and then to the Bicol Regional Hospital.
- Both victims died early the next morning.
Medical and Forensic Evidence
- Certification dated March 7, 1990, by Dr. Janice Nanette Estrada, resident physician of Bicol Regional Hospital:
- Rufino Agunos, age 35, died of four gunshot wounds: inguinal area, sacral area, thigh and abdomen; inguinal and thigh wounds bore contusion collars.
- Emeterio Vasquez, age 88, sustained seven gunshot wounds: paraumbilical area, lumbar area, hypogastrium, anterior aspect right forearm, anteromedial right forearm, anteromedial left arm and anterolateral left arm. Four wounds bore contusion collars (paraumbilical area, hypogastrium, right forearm, left arm).
Defense Case: Alibi and Denial
- Appellant's principal defenses were alibi and categorical denial.
- Appellant's version:
- Member of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) with headquarters in Barangay Palsong, Bula.
- At around 7:00 p.m. on February 18, 1990, he claimed to be in Sitio Burabod, Palsong, about one kilometer from the CAFGU headquarters.
- He alleged he, Francisco Bislombre, Benjamin Alina, Jr., and PFC Antero Esteron drank at Honoria Tragante's store until about 11:00 p.m.
- Alibi corroboration:
- Honoria Tragante and Francisco Bislombre corroborated appellant's alibi at trial.
- PFC Antero Esteron also testified that he and appellant had a drinking spree from 7:00 until past 11:00 p.m.; he remembered the date because it was the fiesta of Balatan.
- Defensive witnesses and evidence:
- Lt. Antonio Lopez (deputy chief of police) and SPO2 Claro Ballebar testified for the defense in support of general investigative observations. Lopez identified a police certification by Pfc. Ramon N. Canabe characterizing the shooters as "unidentified armed