Title
People vs. Jumamoy y Anora
Case
G.R. No. 101584
Decision Date
Apr 7, 1993
Luciano Jumamoy convicted of murder and illegal firearm possession after shooting Rolando Miel in 1987; alibi discredited, witnesses deemed credible, no double jeopardy.
murder
illegal possession of firearm
prosecution witnesses

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19843)

Factual Background

On the evening of April 1, 1987, at the Cultural Center in barangay Poblacion, municipality of Inabanga, Bohol, Rolando Miel attended a disco with companions and stood with some friends beside a concrete post. The assailant appeared obliquely to the right in front of the victim and fired successive shots. The victim slumped and died before arrival at the hospital. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses who positively identified the assailant as the accused. A medico-legal examination by Dr. Hector Enriquez disclosed four gunshot wounds, two of which were fatal. A slug recovered from the body was examined by the NBI Supervising Ballistician and found to have been fired from a .38-caliber firearm, probably a homemade weapon. The police certification established that the accused had no permit to possess or carry a firearm.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bohol filed two informations against the accused: Criminal Case No. 5064 for Murder and Criminal Case No. 5065 for Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions. The accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment on December 10, 1987. Upon motion, the two cases were consolidated and tried together before Branch 3 of the RTC, Tagbilaran City. The prosecution produced ten witnesses in chief and two for rebuttal. The defense offered three witnesses in chief and the accused testified in surrebuttal. The trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both crimes, imposing reclusion perpetua in each case, awarding actual civil indemnity of P7,800 and moral damages of P30,000 to the heirs of the deceased, and made no pronouncement as to costs.

Evidence Presented for the Prosecution

The prosecution’s witnesses, including Lino Gudes, Alfredo Alforque, and Rodrigo Aparicio, testified to having known the accused prior to the incident and to positively identifying him at the scene. They described the accused’s sudden appearance and the firing of three successive shots at the victim. One witness related that the accused, while fleeing, passed by the victim’s brother and poked a gun at him. The medico-legal report described fatal wounds in the right thoraco-abdominal region and recovered a slug. Ballistic examination attributed the slug to a .38-caliber, probably homemade firearm. A police certification (Exhibit E) established that the accused had not been issued a permit or license to possess or carry a firearm.

Defense and Alibi

The accused testified that he departed Inabanga for Cebu City on March 29, 1987, aboard the motor banca M/B Roxan to seek employment and that he stayed at the house of a friend, Feliciano Cenita, in Pasil, Cebu City, from April 1 to April 4, 1987. He claimed to have driven a passenger jeepney as a reserve driver while in Cebu and later went to Manila. The accused did not produce Cenita despite requests for postponement to secure his testimony. Instead, the accused offered Ramon Micutuan to corroborate presence in Cebu. On rebuttal, Leandro Tirol, owner of M/B Roxan, testified that the vessel did not make a voyage from Buenavista to Cebu on March 29, 1987. Confronted with this testimony, the accused altered the date of departure on surrebuttal to March 30, 1987.

Trial Court's Findings on Credibility and Alibi

The trial court found the prosecution witnesses credible and their identification of the accused positive and consistent. The court observed that the Cultural Center was sufficiently lighted, including a 25-watt bulb near the concrete post where the victim and witnesses stood, and that the witnesses had long acquaintance with the accused. The court treated the alibi as an afterthought, emphasized the accused’s failure to present the promised witness Feliciano Cenita, and noted the contradiction exposed by Tirol’s testimony regarding the M/B Roxan schedule. The trial court therefore rejected the alibi and convicted the accused of the charged offenses.

Appeal and Assigned Errors

The accused appealed, contending principally that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in convicting him of both crimes and in imposing reclusion perpetua for each. He alleged inconsistencies among eyewitnesses, suppression by the prosecution of three listed eyewitnesses who did not testify, and the prosecution’s failure to introduce the firearm used in the shooting as evidence.

Supreme Court's Analysis on Identification, Inconsistencies and Suppression

The Supreme Court reiterated that questions of credibility are primarily for the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing that the court overlooked or misapplied material facts. The Court reviewed the records and found no ground to overturn the trial court’s findings. It held that the three eyewitnesses who testified had long familiarity with the accused and that the lighting conditions were sufficient for positive identification. The Court rejected the suppression argument, noting the prosecutor’s prerogative to select which witnesses to present and that non-presentation of merely corroborative witnesses does not constitute suppression. The Court stated the adverse presumption from suppression is inapplicable where the omission is not willful, the withheld evidence is corroborative, the evidence is available to both parties, or the omission is an exercise of privilege. The Court further observed that the accused could have subpoenaed the absent witnesses if their testimony was critical. It characterized the inconsistencies cited by the accused as minor and not impairing the essential integrity of the prosecution’s case. The Court also held that the prosecution is not required to produce the weapon used to sustain a conviction when other proof establishes that a crime was committed and that the accused was its author.

Supreme Court's Conclusion on the Accused's Alibi

The Court found the alibi manifestly fabricated. It relied on Tirol’s testimony that the M/B Roxan did not sail on the date asserted by the accused and on the accused’s failure to produce the promised alibi witness Feliciano Cenita despite repeated opportunities. The Court concluded that the accused’s flight to Manila shortly after the incident was more consistent with evasion than with a bona fide search for employment.

Ruling on Murder: Treachery and Penalty

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder under Article 248, Revised Penal Code. The Court agreed with the trial court that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery as defined in Article 14(16), Revised Penal Code. The Court explained that the sudden, unexpected firing at an unarmed victim insured the accomplishment of the killing without risk to the assailant and without opportunity for the victim to defend himself. The trial court’s imposition of reclusion perpetua for the murder conviction was affirmed.

Ruling on Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm and Sentencing

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction under P.D. No. 18

...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