Title
People vs. Obosa
Case
G.R. No. 132069
Decision Date
May 31, 2000
Secretary Ferrer and chauffeur Calderon ambushed and killed in 1987; Obosa convicted of murder based on credible witness testimonies, treachery, and disproven alibi.
murder
conviction
treachery

Case Summary (G.R. No. 132069)

Factual Background and Evidence for the Prosecution

The Informations alleged that Obosa conspired with others to kill the victims, with qualifying circumstances including treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, nighttime purposely sought, and execution by a band. The prosecution evidence included autopsy and ballistics findings. The Autopsy Report showed that Ferrer sustained eight gunshot wounds, with the cause of death attributed to five gunshot wounds on the head and neck, while Calderon sustained five gunshot wounds. The Ballistics Report identified the firearms used: the deformed copper jacket recovered from Ferrer’s body was fired from a .38 cal. pistol, while Calderon’s recovered bullets were fired from .45 cal. pistols, with one bullet fired from the same .38 cal. pistol that fired a bullet recovered from Ferrer.

The trial court summarized the testimonial narrative of prosecution witnesses, each observing different aspects of the incident. Sonia Alata, a police aid, testified that between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. she saw Obosa holding a gun in a brown envelope and standing with another person in front of Sun Gin (Sunbeam) Restaurant at the corner of Quirino Avenue and Victor Medina Street. Upon returning to the headquarters after past 6:30 p.m., she again saw Obosa beside the Minute Burger near the same area. Shortly thereafter, she and others heard successive shots.

Victor Gomez, allegedly playing basketball at a nearby plaza, testified that he heard successive gunshots around 6:30 p.m. and later saw Obosa coming out of Victor Medina Street holding a .45 cal. gun which he tucked on his waist, with bullet holes visible in Ferrer’s car and Ferrer found bloody while Calderon was already dead.

George Montabon, who was at or near Union Bank along Quirino Avenue near Victor Medina Street after mass, testified that he heard gunshots and saw three men firing at a car near the canteen at the corner. Two gunmen fled toward Quirino Avenue on a jeepney, while the third gunman—identified in court as Obosa—passed him about five meters away, appeared to look for his companions, and then moved toward Dongalo.

The trial court further found that, sometime in August or September 1987, Obosa confided to Ricardo Palquera, a detainee at the Maximum Security Camp at the New Bilibid Prison, that Obosa killed Ferrer with two civilian companions; Palquera allegedly revealed the matter in writing to Sec. Ileto. The trial court treated the confession as evidence of guilt of high quality.

Trial Court’s Disposition

Despite the Informations charging murder, the Regional Trial Court convicted Obosa and Constancio of two counts of homicide for the death of each victim. It found no aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the offenses. It sentenced Obosa in each case to an indeterminate term, and ordered civil indemnities and moral damages for the victims’ heirs. It also imposed a suspended sentence for Constancio on account of his age and classification as a youthful offender under Art. 192 of P.D. 603. Victoriano Totaan was acquitted for failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Appellate Review and the Change from Homicide to Murder

Obosa appealed. The Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence and concluded that the killings were qualified by treachery, thereby rendering the offenses murder rather than homicide, and held Obosa liable for two counts of murder. Because the proper penalty for murder under the circumstances implicated reclusion perpetua and the death penalty regime was no longer applicable at the time of the crimes, the Court of Appeals refrained from rendering final judgment and referred the matter to the Supreme Court for appropriate action.

Issues Raised by the Accused-Appellant

Obosa’s principal defense attacked the credibility and plausibility of the prosecution witnesses and challenged the evidentiary weight given to the prison-cell “confession” through Palquera. He argued that the testimonies were inconsistent as to the number of gunmen and implausible as to why other assailants were not identified by witnesses who purportedly saw the perpetrators at close range.

He further contended that prosecution witnesses, particularly minors at the time, were allegedly pressured by the police to identify him, and that Alata’s delay in testifying was suspicious. Obosa also argued that he could not have taken part in the killings because, according to prison records, he was inside the prison compound at the time, and that his participation was improbable given the claimed impossibility of leaving and returning to custody.

Additionally, Obosa sought acquittal on the theory that he was made the “fall guy” due to public clamor to arrest the killer of Secretary Ferrer, and he argued that Palquera’s supposed statements should not have been credited, asserting that possession of alcoholic drinks in prison was prohibited and that Palquera did not know him well enough to accurately report any alleged confession.

The People’s Position on Appeal

The Solicitor-General urged affirmance of the appellate court’s ruling. The prosecution maintained that the “discrepancies” among witnesses did not negate their testimony because the witnesses observed the incident from different stages of execution or from different vantage points, and because they shared a common identification of Obosa as the person present at the scene before and after the shots. The People also argued that a witness’s delay in testifying does not necessarily imply fabrication, and that a convicted felon is not disqualified from testifying under the Rules on evidence.

As to Obosa’s claim of impossibility due to incarceration, the People relied on the appellate court’s view that the evidence presented did not prove physical impossibility of his presence at the scene, noting that the logbook entry on Obosa’s return to prison at 2:15 p.m. of August 2, 1987 was considered doubtful and that Obosa had admitted receiving privileges allowing limited time outside prison.

Supreme Court’s Evaluation of Witness Credibility and Alleged Inconsistencies

The Supreme Court held that the apparent discrepancies did not undermine the evidentiary value of the prosecution witnesses. The Court reasoned that the three witnesses—Alata, Montabon, and Gomez—observed the incident from varying perspectives and at different moments, so differences in the number of gunmen they reported did not defeat the testimonies as false. It emphasized that Alata did not witness the actual shooting but remembered seeing a man holding a brown envelope standing with another man in front of Sunbeam restaurant before the incident and that she later saw the same man holding the brown envelope near the Minute Burger kiosk. After passing him, she heard successive gunshots.

The Court sustained Montabon’s testimony as an eyewitness account of the shooting, including his observation that three men were firing, with Obosa passing him and moving toward Dongalo. It likewise sustained Gomez’s testimony, which, though it stated he did not see the actual shooting, placed Obosa at the scene immediately after the shooting while carrying a .45 cal. gun tucked on his waist and leaving toward Dongalo.

The Supreme Court further addressed the defense’s claim that Alata’s delay indicated fabrication. It reiterated that delay in testifying does not, by itself, affect credibility, noting that Alata explained that she told investigators that she saw Obosa near the scene, but she was told to wait. Her written statement was taken almost a month later. The Court also rejected the defense’s assertion that the trial court misstated Alata’s testimony, stating that even if the trial court’s phrasing differed from the stenographic notes, the inaccuracy did not negate her material testimony that Obosa was at the scene during the incident.

The Court also rejected the contention that police coaching was shown by the witnesses’ failure to identify other assailants. It held that Obosa was recognized because the witnesses encountered him on the day of the killings, and it stated that the record showed other witnesses were presented to identify other co-accused when the other gunmen transferred to another vehicle near the Maranao Restaurant. It cited the identification by Edwin Gipaya, a “watch-your-car” boy at the Maranao Restaurant parking lot, of Nieves Constancio as one of the gunmen left behind and who rode a jeepney.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the long-standing rule that appellate courts should accord the trial court’s assessment of witness demeanor and credibility the highest respect, absent showing of arbitrariness or palpable error. It concluded that Obosa failed to establish such taint.

Obosa’s Claim of Incarceration and “Physical Impossibility”

On the defense that Obosa was inside the prison compound and therefore could not have participated, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the presented circumstances did not amount to physical impossibility. It examined the logbook and noted that the logbook entry referred only to the south gate of the Bilibid prison. The Court also relied on the testimony of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, General Meliton B. Goyena, who testified that Obosa received preferential treatment and had a vehicle allowed to park inside the prison compound despite prohibition, and that Obosa was allowed private accommodations and limited time outside prison, including admission by Obosa that he was allowed to stay a few days outside prison at a guard’s house without being reported.

Thus, the Supreme Court found it not improbable that Obosa was at the scene based on the positive identifications by the witnesses. It similarly rejected the argument that an escaped convict could not return to prison, because the Court treated the record as showing that Obosa, though committed to prison, was granted special privileges and could leave and return from time to time

...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