Title
People vs. Layaguin
Case
G.R. No. 106536
Decision Date
Sep 20, 1996
A 20-year-old medical canvasser, Rosalito Cereño, was fatally shot by seven armed men in a revenge attack targeting his father. Despite alibis, the Supreme Court upheld the eyewitness's credibility, convicted the accused of murder, and affirmed reclusion perpetua due to abuse of superior strength.
murder
eyewitness testimony
conviction
A

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-02-1391)

Factual Background

The victim, Rosalito Cereno, was a twenty-year-old medical canvasser for a pharmaceutical company and had no known quarrel with the accused. The hostility, however, was traced to his father, Benito Cereno, a barangay councilman, who had twice been attacked and mauled by the accused-appellants, with criminal charges already filed. Because of this prior animosity, Felisa Cereno, Rosalito’s mother, arranged for her son to be met on his way home. On July 10, 1987, she instructed her daughter Gerarda Villagonzalo to meet Rosalito on his way from the provincial road where the bus would stop.

At around five o’clock in the afternoon, while waiting at a nearby farm, Gerarda Villagonzalo heard gunshots. From her hiding place behind a coconut tree, she saw, according to the testimony accepted by the trial court, Rosalito staggering as a group of seven men with firearms approached and assaulted him. Rosalito fell to his knees and, with arms raised, pleaded for mercy. The men surrounded him and did not heed his entreaty. The killing proceeded in a sequence attributed to the accused: Edgar Layaguin shot Rosalito on the left arm; Rizalino Gemina followed and shot Rosalito twice; and Greg Labayo shot Rosalito twice, while the remaining men stood around with guns aimed at the victim.

After witnessing the incident, Villagonzalo returned home, shocked and unable to speak until she was made to drink water. Around midnight, she and other relatives returned to the scene to locate Rosalito. He was brought home lifeless. A post-mortem examination by Dr. Melecio I. Cabatingan, Rural Health Officer of Alcantara, Cebu, reported five gunshot wounds: on the left upper eyelid, on the left eye, on the left arm, on the left lateral side of the body, on the left palm, and on the abdomen, with the first three described as fatal. Rosalito’s death was attributed to cardio-respiratory arrest and multiple gunshot wounds.

The Information charged the seven men for Murder. The accused apprehended included the six appellants; Greg Labayo remained at large, and the case was archived as to him pending acquisition of jurisdiction over his person.

Information, Pleas, and Trial Outcome

After amendment, the Information alleged that, on or about July 10, 1987 at around 5:00 p.m. in Barangay Sta. Cruz, Municipality of Ronda, Province of Cebu, the accused, conspiring and mutually helping one another, acted with treachery, known premeditation, and abuse of superior strength to wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack and fire at Rosalito Cereno using firearms, hitting him on different parts of his body and causing his death.

At arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court, on August 13, 1991, convicted the six accused apprehended at the time of trial for Murder, appreciating abuse of superior strength and conspiracy, while rejecting treachery and evident premeditation. It sentenced each of the convicted accused to reclusion perpetua and ordered them to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased civil indemnity in the sum of P50,000.00, consistent with the trial court’s reference to jurisprudence raising civil indemnity. The trial court also ordered costs against the accused and directed the treatment of preventive imprisonment credits depending on compliance with disciplinary rules. Due to Rizalino Gemina’s death, the trial court dismissed the case as against him and treated his criminal and civil liabilities as extinguished.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The appellants advanced three principal arguments. First, they assailed the credibility of Gerarda Villagonzalo as a lone eyewitness, contending that her testimony contained inconsistencies and improbabilities, and that it was therefore unreliable. Second, they argued that if the eyewitness account was impaired, their alibi should have been credited. Third, they challenged the trial court’s appreciation of abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance for Murder, asserting that the prosecution was required to prove a deliberate intent to take advantage of such strength and that superiority in numbers was not necessarily superiority in strength, such that the offense should have been homicide, not murder.

The Court’s Assessment of the Eyewitness Testimony

The Court sustained the trial court’s belief in Villagonzalo’s testimony. It rejected the claim that it was improbable for a sister not to scream, run to her brother, or call for help. The Court reasoned that Villagonzalo was confronted with a traumatic incident. It emphasized that the assailants numbered seven and were armed, and that the men did not hesitate to shoot Rosalito despite his pleas. Against that background, the Court held that a lone unarmed woman could reasonably freeze in fear, especially since the attackers had previously harmed her father. It also noted that there was no uniform behavior expected from persons confronted with a shocking incident; reactions under emotional stress could vary.

The Court also addressed the allegation that Villagonzalo could not have witnessed the attack because she was allegedly only eleven meters away and hidden behind a coconut tree. The Court did not accept that conclusion. It explained that the accused might have been preoccupied with their murderous act and did not see or take steps against a possible witness. It further observed that Villagonzalo’s inability to specify the direction of the assailants’ flight did not undermine her credibility. Appellants argued that she should have known where the attackers fled, but the Court treated this as a minor matter, noting that she had testified that “they were already away when I saw,” and that her failure to notice the attackers taking flight could be reasonably inferred.

Concerning supposed contradictions, the Court rejected an assertion that Villagonzalo stated Rosalito was staggering because he had already been shot. The Court held that she did not testify that the staggering resulted from a prior wound, and it pointed out that persistent cross-examination did not produce that claim. The Court observed that staggering did not necessarily indicate that the victim had already been shot; it could reflect beating, confusion, or panic. The Court also minimized a discrepancy on whether the meeting was her first time fetching Rosalito, treating it as relatively slight and not affecting trustworthiness.

Finally, the Court ruled that the familial relationship between Villagonzalo and the victim did not automatically negate her credibility. It reiterated that mere relationship did not necessarily impair a witness’s truthfulness, particularly when the testimony is that of a prosecution witness who, by reason of kinship, may have a natural interest in securing conviction of the true guilty parties.

As to the medical findings and identification of the wounds, the Court upheld the sufficiency of Dr. Cabatingan’s testimony and findings in proving both the number and kind of wounds and the cause of death. It rejected the claim that the injuries were not conclusively proved to be gunshot wounds or that the cause of death remained uncertain. It also rejected the argument that the apparent motive—enmity from attacks on the victim’s father—showed merely family speculation, holding instead that a close reading of the records supported guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Evaluation of the Alibi

Turning to the defense of alibi, the Court affirmed the trial court’s factual findings disbelieving the appellants’ claims. It found that Rizalino Gemina, Edgar Layaguin, and Juvy Tabotabo claimed they were fishing on a nearby island throughout the day until around five o’clock in the afternoon, but only came back at around seven o’clock p.m. The Court questioned the plausibility of such conduct because the accused were not fishermen by occupation and allegedly did not fish often. It also noted that Layaguin and Tabotabo testified that they were farmers. In addition, Tabotabo presented Federico Dalubay to testify that Tabotabo and Layaguin were at the Cereno residence at ten o’clock in the evening to condole with the family. The Court found the testimony incredible when matched against Villagonzalo’s testimony that the family only got Rosalito’s body around midnight. It further noted that Dalubay admitted he was asked to testify by Tabotabo’s father and that Juvy Tabotabo was his wife’s first cousin, rendering the witness’s veracity suspect.

As for Gorgonio Marinas, he claimed he worked at his grandparents’ house from eight o’clock in the morning up to five o’clock in the afternoon and went home at six o’clock in the evening. The Court found support evidence unpersuasive. Marinas presented Rodolfo Caingles to testify that he was at the construction site at the time of the crime. The Court identified bias after cross-examination, when Caingles admitted that his wife and Marinas’s wife were sisters.

Regarding Florencio Dionaldo, the Court found the alibi likewise implausible. Although Dionaldo claimed he was a fisherman, cross-examination revealed his unfamiliarity with the shoreline nearest his residence and with the faces of the moon. His counsel later manifested that fishing was merely Dionaldo’s “hobby,” an attempt to save the testimony. The Court also noted that Dionaldo claimed he was at home singing and playing the guitar or lounging around. It observed that he lived in Ronda, Cebu, not far from the crime scene and the victim’s home.

As for Rolando Bucog, his claim that he was at home caring for his younger siblings was similarly discounted. The Court observed that Bucog’s residence was also in Ronda, Cebu, and not remote from the scene.

The Court upheld the trial court for several doctrinal reasons applied to the facts. It emphasized that the defense of alibi commonly crumbles against positive identification even if provided by a single credible witness. It further noted that all appellants were in Ronda, Cebu or nearby at the time of the k

...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