Title
People vs. Atrejenio y Liba
Case
G.R. No. 120160
Decision Date
Jul 13, 1999
Accused-appellant convicted of murder for fatally shooting victim in 1986; alibi rejected, dying declaration upheld, treachery proven, damages awarded.
murder case
witness identification
murder weapon

Case Summary (G.R. No. 108613)

Factual Background

On the evening of July 27, 1986, Lito J. Olino, the victim’s first cousin, testified that he and Bonifacio Olino were walking along Osmena Street toward Panday Pira Street in Tondo, Manila at about 8:00 p.m.. He stated that the accused-appellant, described as a neighbor for about two weeks, was standing alone at the back of a culvert and taking cover near a concrete fence, approximately eight arm lengths away. When the parties were about five arm lengths apart, Lito testified that the accused-appellant shot the victim using a .38 caliber revolver, held in the accused-appellant’s right hand and supported at the bottom by the left hand. Lito further stated that he saw the shooting because of light from an electric post. After the victim fell to the pavement, Lito tried to help him, and the victim told him that he had been shot by his enemy, the accused-appellant. The victim was taken to the Mary Johnston Hospital, but he was declared dead on arrival.

Lito later accompanied Pfc. Salvador C. Fradejas to the accused-appellant’s house and identified the accused as the perpetrator when he came out. The accused-appellant was subsequently brought to police authorities, and at about 11:00 p.m., he executed a sworn statement (Exh. A) before Cpl. Leonardo Miguel in the presence of Pfc. Fradejas.

Leonito Toltol, a neighbor of the victim, corroborated the eyewitness account. He testified that at about 8:00 p.m., while buying cigarettes in a store in front of his house along Osmena Street, he saw the shooting at the corner of Osmena and Panday Pira Streets, about six arm lengths from his store. He identified the accused-appellant as the assailant and stated that the victim was with Felicito Olino, whom he identified as Lito J. Olino, when he was shot. Leonito testified that the accused used a .38 caliber revolver and that he recognized the accused because of the light from a nearby store. He described the accused’s firing position and stated that after the shot, the victim fell to the pavement. Leonito did not immediately give assistance due to fear, but he informed Lito the following day that he was an eyewitness.

Medical and Investigative Evidence

Dr. Marcial G. Cenido, medico-legal officer of the Western Police District, Manila, testified that he performed an autopsy on the deceased on July 28, 1986 at 10:30 p.m.. He prepared documents including an identification slip and a death certificate indicating that the cause of death was a gunshot wound at the left anterior thorax, lacerating the upper lobe of the left lung. He also prepared a sketch of the human body showing the gunshot wound location and noted the recovery of a round pellet (“bolitas”), with a diameter of 0.6 cm.

Dr. Cenido described the wound’s direction as obliquely backwards, slightly downwards, and slightly toward the midline, passing through the five-intercostal space and lacerating the upper lobe of the left lung and pulmonary vein. He recovered a round pellet embedded in the left posterior eighth intercostal muscle near the vertebral end. He testified that the gunshot wound was fatal because it lacerated the left lung. He noted the absence of any defensive wound, laceration, hematoma, or contusion, which suggested that the victim did not put up a struggle or defense. He estimated that although the shot was not at close range, the victim could have been five feet away or less from the assailant. He likewise noted absence of alcohol in the stomach contents.

Patrolman Salvador C. Fradejas testified that around 9:00 p.m. on July 27, 1986, their office received a call from Felix Garote at the Mary Johnston Hospital regarding the victim who had been admitted at about 8:30 p.m. and pronounced dead on arrival by Dr. Harry Sopan. Pfc. Fradejas went to the hospital, where he met Lito J. Olino, who told him he could identify the accused-appellant if he saw him again and that he knew where the accused-appellant lived, approximately six to eight meters from the scene of the crime. Pfc. Fradejas and Lito proceeded to the accused-appellant’s house at 51-A Quirino Street, Barrio Magsaysay, Tondo, Manila, where accused-appellant came down and opened the door after Pfc. Fradejas knocked. Lito identified him. Pfc. Fradejas testified that three persons were in the house when the accused voluntarily went with the police. Together with Lito, Pfc. Fradejas took the accused-appellant to the station and was present when Lito executed his sworn statement before Cpl. Leonardo Miguel.

Pfc. Fradejas also stated that after apprising the accused-appellant of his constitutional rights, the accused-appellant did not give a written statement but orally admitted his guilt. He later prepared case reports and filed a murder case in the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila.

Finally, Ernie R. Magtibay, ballistician of the National Bureau of Investigation, explained firearm reloading concepts and pellet fitting in a .38 caliber shell. He testified that the effective range of an ordinary .38 caliber was about 150 yards, and that upon his experiments, pellets similar to the recovered projectile could be fired from a .38 caliber revolver. He also testified that the pellet fired from a .38 caliber revolver hit a vital part of the victim’s internal organs, causing death.

Defense Evidence

The defense presented denial and alibi. The accused-appellant testified that before 8:00 p.m. of July 27, 1986, he played basketball with Alfredo Ramirez and Eduardo Viojan at the basketball court of Don Bosco Youth Center. Between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., he said he was in front of his house at Liwayway Street, talking with his friends Alfredo Ramirez and Eduardo Viojan, when the victim, Leonito Toltol, and another person he did not know (Lito J. Olino) passed by on their way to Osmena Street. He claimed the place was lighted. He alleged that he saw people scampering while hearing screams that there was a “riot” and a loud gunshot. He said he and his friends went inside the yard because they could not see what was happening since it was dark.

The accused-appellant testified that shortly thereafter, policemen arrived, and he was taken to the Detective Bureau at U.N. Avenue, Manila. He learned later that he had been implicated in the killing. He denied any intention to kill and stated that the perceived reason for the accusation was an altercation connected to a benefit dance in Barrio Magsaysay that involved electrical shock and subsequent brawl among club members, which he alleged had been settled by barangay authorities. He denied previous misunderstanding with Lito J. Olino and Leonito Toltol.

Eduardo Viojan corroborated that the accused-appellant and witnesses were conversing on a bench outside the house and that the victim and companions passed by appearing drunk. Viojan testified that after hearing shouts about a “riot” and hearing a gunshot, they learned that Bonifacio Olino was shot. He stated that policemen later entered the accused’s house and arrested him after he said, “I am the one,” when asked. Viojan maintained that accused-appellant did not shoot the victim because they were talking with each other when the shooting occurred.

Alfredo Ramirez similarly corroborated the defense timeline and stated that the victim and his companions passed by appearing drunk. He testified that they went inside the yard for fear once they heard people shouting about a “riot” and after they heard a gunshot. He added that he believed it was impossible for the accused-appellant to have been the assailant because he and the accused were talking when the incident occurred and because accused-appellant did not have a gun.

Trial Court Ruling and the Issues on Appeal

The RTC found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Art. 246 of the Revised Penal Code, imposed reclusion perpetua, and ordered indemnity of P50,000.00 to the victim’s heirs.

On appeal, the accused-appellant primarily contended that there was reasonable doubt. He challenged the trial court’s alleged disregard of Pfc. Fradejas’ testimony that the accused-appellant orally admitted guilt, and he invoked constitutional protections against confessions obtained without compliance with the rights under custodial investigation. He also questioned discrepancies in the sworn statement of Lito J. Olino, attacked the identification, and raised alibi.

The Court’s Evaluation of Admissibility and Credibility

The Court addressed first the challenge to the prosecution evidence regarding the accused’s alleged admission. The Court held that the trial court correctly disregarded Pfc. Fradejas’ testimony about an oral admission because the narration indicated that the confession was obtained in a manner violating the Miranda rights of persons under investigation. The Court referred to Article III, Sec. 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution, which provides the right to remain silent and to counsel during custodial investigation, and emphasized that these rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. As a consequence, the Court treated the alleged confession as inadmissible under Article III, Sec. 12(3).

The Court then found that, even without the confession, the prosecution’s remaining evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, focusing on the victim’s dying declaration and the eyewitness identifications.

The Court found that the “strongest basis” for conviction was the dying declaration made by the victim identifying his enemy as the assailant. Applying Rule 130, Sec. 37’s requisites for ante mortem statements, the Court held that all requisites were present: the statement concerned the crime and circumstances; at the time it was made, the victim was under the consciousness of impending death; the victim would have been competent had he survived; and the declaration was offered in a criminal prosecution for murder where the victim was the declarant. The Court reiterated that dying declarations are considere

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms