G.R. No. 128073 - People vs. Mamalias

Case Summary (G.R. No. 128073)

Parties, Venue, and Relevant Charges

The accused was charged in the City of Manila with murder for fatally shooting Francisco de Vera three times in the head, allegedly attended by treachery and evident premeditation, and with frustrated murder for shooting Alexander Bunag on the face, with the medical intervention that prevented the consummation of murder. The case proceeded before the RTC Manila Branch 33, with the appealed decision rendered on May 15, 1995.

Filing of Charges and Arraignment; Co-accused at Large

On January 31, 1993, the accused and a John Doe were charged for murder and frustrated murder, arising from the events of August 9, 1992. The accused pleaded not guilty, and his co-accused remained at large. Trial followed despite the lack of the additional eyewitnesses sought by the prosecution.

Trial Evidence Presented by the Prosecution

The prosecution presented only two witnesses: SPO3 Manuel Liberato of the Western Police District Command and Dr. Remigio Rivera of Mary Johnston Hospital. SPO3 Liberato testified that the accused was arrested on January 4, 1993. He then narrated that a relative of the murder victim brought to police headquarters Epifanio Raymundo, an alleged eyewitness, and that Raymundo’s sworn statement was taken by SPO3 Liberato. In that sworn statement, Raymundo claimed that at about 5:00 a.m. on August 9, 1992, he saw De Vera in front of house no. 1001 in Ilaya Street near Padre Capitan Street, Tondo, Manila; two unidentified men approached and shot De Vera without provocation; a stray bullet hit Bunag, who was in the line of fire; and the assailants fled after shooting De Vera three times.

SPO3 Liberato also prepared several written reports, including the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report and a Progress Report dated January 7, 1993. In the Progress Report, SPO3 Liberato stated that the suspects were two unidentified malepersons, that police conducted follow-up inquiries, and that after a series of stake-outs and raids, the accused and certain others were apprehended. The Progress Report further stated that Raymundo positively identified the accused as one of the men who shot Francisco de Vera and seriously injured Alexander Bunag. It also recorded that, during custodial investigation, the accused allegedly verbally admitted that he acted as a look-out and gave support to another alias “LANDONG WARAY,” that he was allegedly paid P2,400.00, and that another alias “BOBBY URAK” supposedly ordered the killing.

Dr. Rivera testified on the medical treatment of Bunag. He stated that on August 9, 1992, Bunag sustained a gunshot wound at the right cheek measuring about one (1) cm, with a possible penetrating wound in the cranial area measuring about five (5) cms. Bunag refused a skull x-ray. Dr. Rivera cleansed the wounds and gave anti-tetanus medications, and Bunag was released the same day.

Failure to Locate Additional Witnesses and Resting of the Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution attempted to present Alexander Bunag, the heirs of Francisco de Vera, and Epifanio Raymundo as additional witnesses, but authorities could not locate them. The record disclosed that warrants of arrest were issued against the heirs of De Vera, Bunag, and Raymundo for failure to appear and for giving fictitious addresses. With the absence of other material witnesses, the prosecution rested its case.

Defense Evidence and Claim of Alibi

The defense presented only the accused. He claimed that on the date and time of the shooting incident, he was in his house in Masinop, Wagas Street, Tondo, Manila, fetched water, and had no knowledge of any unusual incident. He denied any knowledge of the crimes charged. He also testified that on January 4, 1993, he was arrested without warrant while counting proceeds from watch and eyeglass sales, and that he was not assisted by counsel during custodial investigation.

RTC Conviction and its Reliance on Identification and Admissions

On May 15, 1995, the RTC convicted the accused of murder for Francisco de Vera and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and it imposed civil indemnity in the amount of P2,400.00. For the injury inflicted on Bunag, the RTC found him guilty of frustrated murder under Article 248 in relation to Article 6, and it held that the penalty was absorbed by the more serious murder charge.

The RTC reasoned that the evidence presented by the prosecution supported the allegations in both informations. It emphasized that the accused did not deny his apprehension and did not dispute that confrontation occurred at police headquarters with Raymundo pointing to him. It also found that he did not deny the investigator’s claim that he verbally admitted shooting De Vera and that he was paid P2,400.00 by alias “Landong Waray.” The RTC considered the accused’s denial as insufficient to overcome what it treated as the presumption of guilt supported by the prosecution’s evidence.

Issues on Appeal: Escape and Evidentiary Sufficiency

On appeal, the accused contended that the RTC convicted him on facts not testified to in court and that the conviction therefore rested on hearsay. The Supreme Court then confronted the threshold issue: whether it should acquit the accused when his whereabouts were unknown and he was no longer in the custody of the law.

During the pendency of the appeal, the Court issued inquiries and directives to determine the accused’s confinement status and whereabouts. The Bureau of Corrections notified the Court that it had no record of confinement. The Court ordered the trial court, the jail warden, the Bureau of Corrections, and the Public Attorney’s Office to provide information within specified periods. The RTC replied that an Order of Commitment dated August 2, 1995 had been satisfied and delivered to the Manila City Jail on August 11, 1995. Despite this, communications indicated that the accused could not be located thereafter, and the Bureau of Corrections had no record of his confinement in the New Bilibid Prison or other national penal institution.

In a Manifestation and Motion, the Solicitor General recommended acquittal on the ground that the conviction rested on hearsay evidence.

Jurisdiction Despite Escape: Discretion and Exceptional Cases

The Supreme Court reviewed the procedural rule on escape under Section 8, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which allowed dismissal of an appeal when the appellant escapes from prison or confinement or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. The Court reiterated the general principle that an appellant who flees places himself beyond the court’s reach and waives rights to seek relief unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court. It recognized, however, that escape does not necessarily bar appellate review in exceptional circumstances.

The Court invoked People vs. Araneta, where it proceeded to exercise jurisdiction despite the accused’s jump of bail to avoid injustice, explaining that dismissal could cause finality of an unfavorable homicide finding while depriving the accused of a review of an appellate acquittal outcome in light of the rule on double jeopardy. The Court also relied on People vs. Francisco, where despite escape from confinement during appeal, the Court took up the merits to avoid miscarriage of justice when the Solicitor General recommended acquittal for failure to prove guilt beyond legal and moral certainty.

Applying these precedents, the Supreme Court held that it should retain jurisdiction to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused to prevent a miscarriage of justice, emphasizing that procedural rules must serve the ultimate goal of rendering justice and should not be used to frustrate it.

Constitutional Standard: Presumption of Innocence and Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The Supreme Court then addressed whether guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. It reiterated the constitutional mandate that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that proof beyond reasonable doubt of every essential fact must be clearly established by the prosecution. Suspicion and conjecture could not overturn the presumption of innocence.

Evaluation of the Prosecution Evidence: Hearsay and Lack of Confrontation

The Court found that the RTC’s conviction relied principally on hearsay evidence, specifically the testimony of SPO3 Liberato and the sworn statement of Epifanio Raymundo, whose content was never affirmed through personal testimony in court. The Court pointed out that SPO3 Liberato lacked personal knowledge of the facts surrounding the shooting. The Progress Report and arrest-related documents were based on information allegedly relayed by Raymundo about five months after the crimes were committed.

The Court also corrected a factual misapprehension attributed to the RTC: the records did not show that SPO3 Liberato went to the locus criminis shortly after the shooting. Instead, the Court noted that PO3 Edgardo E. Ko had been dispatched to investigate, but PO3 Ko was not called to testify. Moreover, SPO3 Liberato was not even part of the team that apprehended the accused on January 4, 1993. He testified that he was merely turned over the accused on January 6, 1993, and he di

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 128073)

People of the Philippines prosecuted Rene Mamalias y Fiel for murder and frustrated murder arising from the shooting of Francisco de Vera y Del Valle and the gunshot injury to Alexander Bunag y Figueroa.
Rene Mamalias y Fiel was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 33) and sought appellate relief on the ground that the conviction rested on hearsay evidence.
The accused-appellant escaped pending appeal and became unlocatable, raising the threshold question of whether the Court could still resolve guilt or innocence.
The Court acquitted to prevent miscarriage of justice, holding that the conviction failed because the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt through admissible evidence consistent with the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The plaintiff-appellee was People of the Philippines, and the accused-appellant was Rene Mamalias y Fiel.
The Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 33) rendered judgment on May 15, 1995, convicting the accused of murder and frustrated murder.
The accused-appellant appealed the RTC judgment.
During the pendency of the appeal, the Court issued multiple resolutions to ascertain the accused-appellant’s whereabouts and confinement status.
The Bureau of Corrections reported that it had no record of confinement of the accused-appellant.
The RTC later informed the Court that the Order of Commitment dated August 2, 1995 had been delivered and received by the Manila City Jail on August 11, 1995, indicating satisfaction of the commitment order.
Despite these developments, communications showed that the accused-appellant was no longer in the custody of the law and could not be located.
The Solicitor General recommended acquittal because the conviction was allegedly based on hearsay evidence.

Charging Information and Alleged Acts

The prosecution filed two cases on January 31, 1993 based on an incident allegedly occurring on August 9, 1992 in Manila.
Criminal Case No. 93-115102 alleged that the accused, with an unidentified co-conspirator, attacked Francisco de Vera y Del Valle by shooting him on the head thrice with an unknown caliber gun, thereby causing his death, and that the acts were done with treachery and evident premeditation.
Criminal Case No. 93-115103 alleged that the accused, with an unidentified co-conspirator, shot Alexander Bunag y Figueroa on the face hitting his cheek using an unknown caliber gun, performed acts which would have produced murder, but did not produce the crime due to timely and able medical assistance.
The accused pleaded not guilty to both charges.
The co-accused identified in the allegations remained at large.

Trial Evidence Presented

The prosecution presented only two witnesses: SPO3 Manuel Liberato of the Western Police District Command and Dr. Remigio Rivera of Mary Johnston Hospital.
SPO3 Liberato testified that he arrested the accused-appellant on January 4, 1993, and he described documents he prepared and statements he obtained.
SPO3 Liberato recounted that a relative of the victim brought to police headquarters Epifanio Raymundo, whom Raymundo allegedly identified as an eyewitness.
Raymundo’s sworn statement claimed that at about 5:00 a.m. on August 9, 1992, Raymundo saw De Vera standing near a specified house in Tondo, that two unidentified men shot De Vera without provocation, and that Bunag was hit by a stray bullet that killed De Vera.
SPO3 Liberato prepared a Booking Sheet and an Arrest Report and a Progress Report, which recited that the suspects were two unidentified malepersons and later described the accused-appellant as part of the alleged “Robin Padilla gang.”
The Progress Report stated that Raymundo positively identified the accused-appellant as one of the men who shot Francisco De Vera and seriously injured Alexander Bunag, and it reported the accused-appellant’s alleged verbal admission that he acted as a look-out and that other aliases were involved, including that he was paid P2,400.00 for the job.
Dr. Remigio Rivera testified on the nature of Bunag’s wounds, including a gunshot wound at the right cheek and possible penetrating cranial injury, and he stated that he did not determine the extent of head injury because Bunag refused a skull x-ray.
Dr. Rivera testified that he cleansed the wounds, administered anti-tetanus medications, and released Bunag the same day.
The prosecution attempted to present Alexander Bunag, the heirs of Francisco De Vera, and Epifanio Raymundo but the authorities could not locate them, so the prosecution rested its case.

Defense Evidence and Admissions Denied

The defense presented only the accused-appellant as a witness.
The accused-appellant testified that on the date and time of the incident he was in his house in Masinop, Wagas Street, Tondo, fetched water, and was unaware of any unusual incident.
The accused-appellant denied any knowledge of the crimes charged.
The accused-appellant stated that on January 4, 1993 he was arrested without warrant while counting proceeds from sales of watches and eyeglasses.
The accused-appellant asserted that he was not assisted by counsel during custodial investigation.

RTC Findings and Penalty

The RTC held that the non-appearance of the other witnesses was not fatal because it “surmised” that they went into hiding