Title
People vs. Quillo y Esmani
Case
G.R. No. 232338
Decision Date
Jul 8, 2019
A man acquitted of murder after witnesses' inconsistent testimonies and unreliable identification failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 204307)

Factual Background

On May 28, 2014 at about 6:30 p.m., Vivien Yap-De Castro was walking along Ilang-Ilang Street towards IBP Road with companions when a black motorcycle with two persons stopped beside them and the back rider shouted "ate!", pointed a gun, and fired two successive shots that struck Vivien and caused her death. The companions who testified were Audrey Phoebe Yap-Lopez, Michael M. Marinas, Gina A. Besmonte, and Corazon D. Dasig. The riders reportedly fled toward Litex Street after the shooting. The medico-legal and autopsy reports showed two gunshot wounds and attributed death to the head wound.

The Information and Charge

The Information charged that on May 28, 2014 in Quezon City, the accused, with intent to kill and qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, willfully and feloniously shot Vivien twice in the head, causing her death, thereby alleging the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

Prosecution Evidence at Trial

The prosecution presented the four companions and PO2 Jogene Hernandez as witnesses. The witnesses testified that they saw the back rider's face because he allegedly did not wear a helmet and that they later identified the accused in a police line-up. A composite sketch was prepared with testimony given on June 2, 2014. During trial, however, significant inconsistencies emerged: Gina admitted she only saw a shadow of the gunman and focused on the gun, could not describe attire, and could not reliably assess height while the rider was seated; Michael testified that he walked ahead and only saw the assailant after the shooting and supplied only general features such as complexion and shirt color; Corazon stated the motorcycle stopped for only seconds. The witnesses did not report any distinguishing marks or the motorcycle plate, and none had prior acquaintance with the assailant.

Defense and Accused's Account

The accused maintained an alibi. He testified that on the date of the shooting he was initially in Water Hall, Barangay Payatas B to seek money for his son's shoes and then went to Montalban because his first wife was hospitalized. He recounted later events in June where he was assaulted by others, brought to police, and thereafter taken to Camp Karingal, where he claimed he was coerced and beaten and forced to admit being "Bunso"; he denied ever having met the victim.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua. The RTC awarded the heirs Php 75,000 as civil indemnity, Php 50,000 as moral damages, Php 30,000 as exemplary damages, and Php 79,000 as actual damages. The RTC concluded that the accused, as back rider, delivered the fatal shot and that treachery attended the killing because the assault was sudden and unexpected.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's conviction in a Decision dated August 30, 2016 but modified the monetary award by directing that the total damages bear legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid. The CA found that the prosecution evidence, including out-of-court identification, sufficiently established the accused's culpability and that treachery was present.

Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the issues as whether the prosecution witnesses positively identified the accused as the assailant and whether treachery qualified the killing as murder. The Court noted that the defense urged insufficiency of positive identification and challenged the existence of qualifying circumstances.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Out-of-Court Identification

The Court reviewed the law on out-of-court identification as explained in People v. Teehankee, Jr., 319 Phil. 128 (1995) and applied the totality of the circumstances test, which considers the witness' opportunity to view the criminal, the degree of attention, accuracy of prior description, level of certainty at identification, the lapse of time between the crime and identification, and the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. The Court found the line-up identifications by Michael, Gina, and Corazon unreliable. Gina admitted seeing only a shadow and could not corroborate height or attire while the assailant was seated; Michael's description was general and was given five days after the incident; Corazon's account that the motorcycle stopped only for seconds contradicted the others' claim of one to two minutes. The Court observed that the witnesses failed to note distinguishing features or the motorcycle plate and that their inconsistent accounts and the lapse before giving statements diminished their credibility.

Application of Human Experience and Precedents

T

...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.