Title
People vs. Gutierrez
Case
G.R. No. 137610-11
Decision Date
Feb 6, 2002
Four men ambushed a jeep, killing three and injuring others; Castillo convicted of murder and attempted murder despite alibi defense.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137610-11)

Factual Background

The prosecution evidence established that at about 5:00 in the morning of January 8, 1992, Lorenzo de Leon was driving a Sarao passenger jeep owned and used by the family of Vicente de Leon. Riding in the jeep were several members of Lorenzo’s party, including Vicente de Leon, Catalina de Leon, Gregoria de Leon, Aldren de Leon, and Racquel Agbuya. They were travelling toward the poblacion of San Carlos City, to attend a hearing in an attempted murder case.

As the jeep moved slowly along a bumpy and rugged road in Barangay Sanlibo, four men—Zacarias Castillo, Esting Carino, Juancho Gutierrez, and Manuel Gutierrez—fired at the right side of the jeep from about three meters away. The headlights of the jeep allegedly illuminated the accused near a large camachile tree, enabling Lorenzo to identify Castillo and Carino from his barangay Sanlibo and the Gutierrezes from an adjacent barrio. Lorenzo testified that Castillo used an armalite, Carino used a rifle, and the Gutierrezes each used a carbine. Lorenzo then jumped off the jeep, crawled to the grass, and ran to Barangay Idiong where he was taken to the emergency hospital of Bayambang. He sustained gunshot injuries, including to the arm and temple. His companions, including Catalina de Leon, Gregoria de Leon, and Racquel Agbuya, were also hit and were later transferred to Bolingit General Hospital in San Carlos City.

The deceased were Vicente de Leon and Guillermo Tapiador, both killed by gunshot wounds, while Aldrin de Leon also died. Catalina de Leon corroborated the prosecution narration. She testified that around 5:00 in the morning she was seated behind Lorenzo in the passenger jeep and that, as the vehicle proceeded on the bumpy road, Juancho Gutierrez and Manuel Gutierrez suddenly blocked the jeep and fired from the right side. She added that Castillo and Carino fired from the rear part of the jeep. She identified the firearms used based on her familiarity with armalites carried by a brother-in-law who was a policeman. Catalina testified that she was hit on her left arm, and that the firing lasted for about fifteen minutes. She also related that the headlights illuminated the assailants and that, toward the end of the firing, dawn was breaking and the surroundings became bright, which allowed her to identify the men. She further testified that after the attack the four accused ran toward mango trees leading to Malicer, and she said she saw the accused the previous day during a drinking spree at the house of Castillo’s brother.

Investigation and Medical Evidence

The police investigation corroborated the occurrence of a coordinated gun attack. SPO1 Lito Barboza, a police investigator on duty at the Bayambang Police Station, testified that he responded around 6:00 a.m. to a radio call about a shooting incident in Barangay Sanlibo. Upon arriving at a rough road in the barangay, he saw a Sarao jeep peppered with at least six bullet holes. The bodies of Vicente de Leon, Aldrin de Leon, and Guillermo Tapiador were found dead. Within three to five meters from the right side of the jeep, police recovered multiple spent shells, including empty shells of an M-16 rifle, carbine or .30 caliber, and Springfield 1903 or a garand rifle. The police took photographs and then proceeded to Bayambang hospital and later to San Carlos General Hospital where the surviving victims were brought. The investigator testified that the victims were unconscious at first and thus statements of the four could not be taken immediately. He also reported that sworn statements were executed later in February 1992.

Federico Simeon, the desk officer, corroborated the police documentation by identifying the police blotter entry related to the January 8, 1992 incident.

Medical evidence further supported that the victims sustained gunshot wounds and explained the necessity and effects of medical treatment. Dr. Juan Carrera testified that he treated the surviving victims at San Carlos General Hospital. He issued medical certificates for Gregoria de Leon, listing gunshot wounds involving the posterior and supraorbital regions with no exit; for Lorenzo de Leon, listing multiple lacerated wounds and gunshot injuries on facial and chest areas plus arm wounds; for Catalina de Leon, listing gunshot wounds on the left arm including an injury that involved a fracture of the complete open humerus; and for Racquel Agbuya, listing gunshot wounds in the perianal and limb areas. Carrera opined that if Catalina de Leon had not received immediate medical attention, she would have died from hypovolemic shock or loss of blood due to the fracture, though he stated she did not require an operation. He also indicated that Gregoria de Leon may have developed neurogenic shock secondary to pain if not treated, while Lorenzo required surgical intervention due to multiple lacerated wounds.

Dr. Nestor C. Pascual, the Municipal Health Officer of Bayambang, conducted post-mortem examinations on the deceased. He testified that Vicente de Leon died of cardio-respiratory arrest due to gunshot wounds causing massive bleeding, with described injuries including a wound penetrating the brain and another severing the vertebral column and penetrating the abdominal cavity. For Aldrin de Leon, he testified that a bullet penetrated the heart and that the cause of death was cardiac arrest due to gunshot wound. For Guillermo Tapiador, Jr., he testified that multiple gunshot wounds penetrated the abdominal cavity and hit vital organs and blood vessels, with a further wound on the left lung and heart, and that the cause of death was cardiorespiratory arrest due to gunshot wounds.

Defense Evidence and Trial Outcome

The defense presented the testimony of Zacarias Castillo and several witnesses to support an alibi. Castillo testified that from 1990 to 1996 he was employed as a house painter by Landhaus Properties and Development Corporation. He claimed that on January 7, 1992 he reported to work in Antipolo, Rizal from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and slept at a barracks that night. On January 8, 1992, he again worked in Antipolo from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and he slept in a vacant unit. He admitted that he could take leave but stated that from January to March 1992 he did not go home to his hometown in Sanlibo, Bayambang because travel took six to eight hours by bus. He asserted that after the 1992 shooting until 1996, police officers of Bayambang did not arrest him when he went home. He claimed he was arrested later in 1997 on the charge of murder, and he denied knowing the co-accused Manuel Gutierrez, Juancho Gutierrez, and Esting Carino. He also denied that he fired at the victims and claimed he was in Antipolo at the time of the incident.

The defense called Ernesto Tabor, a co-painter, and Leoberto Makilan, another co-worker. Both testified that they worked with Castillo at the Landhaus projects in Antipolo on January 7 and January 8, 1992, and stated that after work they went to barracks and remained near each other, with Castillo present during the working hours.

Eva Leonil, Castillo’s live-in partner, testified that Castillo worked as a painter assigned to the Landhaus projects and that they lived in barracks at the work site. She stated that Castillo’s project was terminated in 1996 and that he later worked for Engineer Cresencio Milla until his arrest in 1997. Leonil also related that after Castillo’s arrest, she obtained a copy of the police blotter and had it photocopied. She further testified about a voucher indicating attendance from January 5 to 11, 1992, and stated that travel from Antipolo to San Carlos took five to seven hours.

In rebuttal, the prosecution presented Erlinda de Leon Bocalbos, who testified on the familial relations among the accused.

The trial court upheld the prosecution and convicted Castillo. It found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, with indemnity and moral damages to the heirs in the amount of P50,000.00 per count of murder. It also found him guilty of four counts of frustrated murder and imposed an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium as maximum for each count. In a separate disposition, it acquitted Castillo in Crim. Case No. SCC-1871 of Illegal Possession of Firearm.

Appellant’s Assignment of Errors and Contentions

On appeal, Castillo asserted, first, that the trial court erred in giving credence to what he described as “manifestly improbable, incredible, unreliable and biased” testimony of spouses Lorenzo and Catalina de Leon, especially pointing to alleged discrepancies in their affidavits as to their ability to see the assailants. Second, he argued that the trial court erred in not crediting or rejecting his defense of alibi. Third, he argued that the trial court erred in convicting him beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged in Criminal Case No. SCC 1870.

The Court’s Discussion: Credibility, Identification, and Conspiracy

The Court rejected Castillo’s arguments challenging credibility. It reiterated that the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimonies were matters best left to the trial court’s discretion because the trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and conduct. The Court held that Castillo’s arguments based on the witnesses’ affidavits amounted to speculation on what could have occurred, while the witnesses testified in open court about what actually happened, including their identification of Castillo as one of the assailants.

The Court also treated Castillo’s invocation of inconsistencies as unavailing because affidavits were generally subordinate to testimony given in open court. It further held that Castillo’s attempt to minimize his identification by reference to police blotter details deserved scant consid

...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.