Title
People vs. De Leon
Case
G.R. No. 132160
Decision Date
Jun 19, 2001
Danilo AAez was abducted and murdered in 1993; witnesses identified Freddie De Leon, whose alibi was rejected. Convicted of murder, he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
murder
witnesses
treachery
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 132160)

Factual Background

The prosecution’s evidence showed that on the morning of April 14, 1993, Danilo Anez told his wife, Leony Anez, that after his work the following day he would go to a wake at Dona Carmen, Fairview, Quezon City, for Jojo de Leon. In the early hours of April 15, 1993, because Danilo had not yet come home, Leony and her brother-in-law, Efren Anez, fetched him from the wake site. About three (3) meters from that area, while still on board a passenger jeepney, they saw about five (5) armed men force Danilo to board an old white Ford Fiera with plate NAA 711. The area was well lighted. Leony recognized Mario De Leon and Freddie De Leon among the armed persons forcing her husband to board the vehicle. She also observed that Freddie was carrying an armalite, and she later saw Mario holding a gun.

Leony returned home and sought assistance to locate her husband. Shortly thereafter, Elpidio Puwayen, Danilo’s best friend, informed her that Danilo had been found dead on Icon Street near Francisco High School. Leony immediately went to the location, but the cadaver had already been taken by the police. A medico-legal officer and chief of the PNP Crime Laboratory conducted an autopsy on April 15, 1993 and found six (6) external injuries, four (4) of which were gunshot wounds. The fatal gunshot wounds were in Danilo’s head and right side. Based on entry wound measurements, the doctor opined that the firearms used were either .38 caliber or .45 caliber pistols.

Leony was pregnant at that time and delivered her baby on April 17, 1993, two days after Danilo’s death. Because she feared retaliation and because the De Leon brothers were allegedly often seen at Station 5 (Precinct 5), she initially did not report what she had witnessed. On June 25, 1993, she went to the PACC and executed an affidavit identifying the assailants. She also sought the assistance of then Vice President Joseph Estrada.

The shooting was likewise testified to by Edgardo Miranda, a barangay tanod assigned to guard San Francisco High School at night. He testified that around 4:00 a.m. on April 15, 1993, he saw Danilo with Cesar Cabildo, Mario De Leon, and Freddie De Leon moving toward the direction of the school. Miranda recognized Freddie because he had known him since 1984 or 1985 in Mangahan. He also recognized Mario as a former companion and identified Cabildo as a police officer assigned at Station 5, whom he had met in 1989. Miranda noted illumination from two lighted Meralco posts along Ecol’s Street, including one store light, which aided his observation. When trouble sensed, he entered the school premises. From inside, he heard Danilo exclaim a question of blame followed by gunfire. He climbed the school’s concrete fence and, about fifteen (15) meters away, he saw the De Leon brothers shoot Danilo while Cabildo watched them. After additional gunshots, Danilo fell. Cabildo and the De Leon brothers walked away. Miranda called police by informing Major Neron, who requested that Miranda call the authorities at Precinct 5. Miranda later executed his “salaysay” before the PACC naming Freddie as one of the assailants.

The De Leon brothers were arrested on July 16, 1993 by the PACC. On July 17, 1993, Mario De Leon, with counsel, executed an extrajudicial confession admitting that he and Cabildo killed Danilo Anez.

Trial Court Proceedings

The criminal case proceeded against only Freddie De Leon and Mario De Leon, since PO3 Cesar Cabildo remained at large. After trial, the RTC rendered its decision on October 17, 1997, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Because the commission of the offense preceded the effectivity of R.A. 7659 on December 31, 1993, the RTC imposed reclusion perpetua for each accused and ordered them to pay P50,000.00 to Danilo’s legal heirs as indemnity in solidum, with costs against the accused. Only Freddie De Leon filed a Notice of Appeal.

The Parties’ Contentions

In his appeal, Freddie De Leon challenged his conviction on multiple grounds. He primarily invoked alibi, asserting that he was at Police Station 5 in Fairview, Quezon City, from about 8:00 p.m. of April 14, 1993 until about 4:00 a.m. of April 15, 1993, leaving only to respond when the station received a report of a shooting incident. He testified that he was a volunteer reporter of DZEC radio and a newspaper reporter for “Taliba,” and that his alleged alibi was corroborated by police witnesses SPO4 Jacinto Basilio and SPO2 Romeo Campo. He further argued that he was not at the locus criminis at the time of killing and that the prosecution witnesses’ testimony contained loopholes rendering them unreliable.

He also argued that the extrajudicial confession of Mario De Leon conspicuously revealed that Freddie had no participation because Mario did not mention Freddie’s presence in the killing. He maintained that the prosecution’s narrative was illogical because, assuming Freddie participated in the shooting, it would not comport with human experience for him to go to the scene shortly thereafter, take pictures, and then take steps to inform the victim’s relatives. He added that he was not arrested for murder but for alleged illegal possession of firearms, allegedly arrested illegally, and formal charging allegedly occurred only after about eighty-five (85) days.

On the credibility of identification, Freddie also contended that Miranda’s “positive identification” could not be taken at face value. He further claimed that the RTC erred in “summarily disregarding” his defense.

The prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintained that the RTC correctly credited Leony Anez and Edgardo Miranda as witnesses who positively identified Freddie as one of the assailants, and that the evidence established the elements of murder, including qualifying circumstances. The OSG also argued that Freddie’s presence at the scene after the killing could be explained by his role as a newsbeat reporter and by the likelihood of discouraging witnesses from reporting.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Evidence

The Court rejected the alibi. It held that Freddie failed to prove that it was highly impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission. While the police witnesses supposedly established that Freddie spent the night in Police Station 5, the Court observed that their testimony did not sufficiently prove that Freddie was at the police station during the precise time of the killing. The Court noted admissions by SPO2 Romeo Campo on cross-examination that he rested, took a nap, and was not aware of everything transpiring at the precinct because many persons came in and out. The Court also noted that SPO4 Jacinto Basilio lacked supervision and control over Freddie and testified that Freddie could leave anytime. Most importantly, Police Station 5 was about two (2) kilometers from the crime scene and could be traversed by motor vehicle in about two (2) minutes. No evidence showed that it was impossible for Freddie to traverse the distance within the relevant period to exclude his presence at the locus criminis.

The Court further noted that Freddie’s failure to provide corroboration through SPO2 Rosello and SPO2 Diongco, the policemen whom he claimed accompanied him after the gun shooting incident report, weakened his claim. The Court also dismissed the inference that it was inherently implausible for Freddie, if he were among the shooters, to arrive at the scene within about thirty (30) minutes, take pictures, and notify the relatives. The Court ruled that non-flight does not establish innocence as a legal principle. It sustained the OSG’s explanation that as a newsbeat reporter, Freddie could be expected to be present and could avoid suspicion and discourage witnesses from coming forward, particularly given the closeness of the scene to Station 5. His prolonged stay at the scene for about two (2) hours rather than immediate broadcasting was treated as consistent with active interest in the crime, not mere press coverage.

On Freddie’s attempt to rely on the extrajudicial confession of Mario De Leon, the Court held that the confession was binding only on Mario and not admissible against, nor in favor of, Freddie. It reiterated that an extrajudicial confession is hearsay as against a co-accused and does not avail under the exceptions in the case.

The Court then addressed the sufficiency of the prosecution witnesses’ testimony. It rejected Freddie’s claim that Miranda failed to identify him. The Court found Miranda’s account “direct and definite,” and it held that Miranda could not have been mistaken given the adequate illumination, Miranda’s estimated distance of only about fifteen (15) meters, and his long acquaintance with Freddie since 1984 or 1985. The Court highlighted Miranda’s testimony that he recognized the De Leon brothers as they approached the school area and that he saw them shoot Danilo. It also credited the corroborating circumstances that Miranda’s narration included the location’s lighting from Meralco posts and store electric light.

As to Leony Anez, the Court held that any minor inconsistencies or lapses did not destroy credibility and merely corroborated Miranda’s eyewitness testimony. It found Freddie’s argument that Leony merely suspected him unpersuasive. The Court reasoned that Leony’s identification was natural because she saw Freddie among the armed men who dragged and forced her husband into the vehicle before she later learned of Danilo’s death. The Court also held that Leony’s reaction was not necessarily inconsistent with human experience. It relied on the doctrine that different people may respond differently when confronted with frightening or startling situations and that such variation does not automatically impugn credibility. The Court also upheld the significance of Leony’s explanation for delay in reporting: at the time she saw the assailants, she

...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