FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 232338, July 08, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RAMON QUILLO Y ESMANI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
CARANDANG, J.:
This is an appeal1 from the August 30, 2016 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) finding accused-appellant Ramon Quillo y Esmani (Ramon) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed 29 June 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-0548 is hereby AFFIRMED with modification that the total awarded damages shall be subject to interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.3
That on or about the 28th day of May 2014, in Quezon City Philippines, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, qualified with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of one VIVIEN YAP-DE CASTRO, by then and there shooting her twice on her head, thereby inflicting upon her serious and grave wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of her untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said offended party.During trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses, namely: (1) Audrey Phoebe Yap-Lopez (Audrey); (2) Michael M. Marinas6 (Michael); (3) Gina A. Besmonte (Gina); (4) Corazon D. Dasig (Corazon); and (5) PO2 Jogene Hernandez (PO2 Hernandez).
The accused persistently planned the commission of the crime prior to the execution and adopted sudden and unexpected attack thereby assaulting the victim to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to himself therefore committing the attendant circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused Ramon Quillo y Esmani guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Murder and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.The RTC found that: (1) Vivien was killed on May 28, 2014 by a gunshot wound on her head; (2) Ramon, the back rider of the motorcycle, delivered the fatal shot upon Vivien; (3) Treachery is present as the assault was so sudden and quick as it took Ramon only a brief moment to accomplish his mission on the unsuspecting victim and consummate the crime; and (4) the present case is neither parricide nor infanticide.17
Likewise, said accused is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased-victim, the following:
1) The amount of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
2) The amount of Php50,000.00 as moral damages;
3) The amount of Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages;
4) The amount of Php79,000.00 as actual damages.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.16
Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. Since corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity of in-court identification during the trial of the case, courts have fashioned out rules to assure its fairness and its compliance with the requirements of constitutional due process. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.27 (Citation omitted and emphasis in the original)In this case, the identification was done through a police line-up. Applying the totality of circumstances test, We find that the out-of-court identification made by Michael, Gina, and Corazon is unreliable and cannot be made the basis for Ramon's conviction. A comprehensive analysis of their testimonies reveals that such are dubious and lack probative weight.
Likewise, when asked whether she was able to see the face of the back rider, Gina categorically admitted that:
Q Was this backrider still in the motorcycle? A He is in the motorcycle, ma'am. Q So he was actually sitting down on the same motorcycle with the driver of the motorcycle? A Yes, ma'am. Q And you were able to tell the height and the complexion while the alleged gunman was sitting down, is that what you are saying from the start? You are able to identify or described [sic] a gunman of his height while sitting down? A Yes, ma'am.29 [Emphasis supplied]
Considering Gina's quoted statements above, We cannot rely on her identification of the assailant. She acknowledged seeing only the shadow of the assailant. She could not have known the height of the assailant as the latter was sitting the whole time as the back rider of a running motorcycle. Hence, her identification of Ramon during the line-up and in court cannot be given credence.
A Naaninag ko lang po siya kasi nakafocus po ang aking paningin sa baril. Q Did you notice the get up or the attire of the backrider when [sic] shot Vivien? A No. sir.30 x x x x Q And am I correct, Madam Witness, when you mentioned that you only saw a shadow of the gunman? So, am I correct that you did not actually saw[sic] his face but only a shadow? A Yes, ma'am.31 [Emphasis supplied]
The statements of Michael quoted above lead this Court to question how he was able to give an accurate description for the composite illustration when he only recalled the rider's skin complexion, height, and the color of the shirt he was wearing. These are general descriptions that fail to provide a definitive account of the physical appearance of the accused-assailant sufficient to convince the Court that Ramon is the assailant.
Q By the way, let me go back at [sic] the time that you saw the face of this back rider, what else did you notice from the back rider when you first saw him? A "Noong una ko po siya nakita, hindi gaanong katangkaran" (interrupted) PROS. DEL ROSARIO: Come again? What... okay, just proceed. A "Hindi katangkaran, yung kulay, di naman gaanong maputi, fair complexion lang po siya, tapos medyo lubog yung..." (interrupted) Q Aside from the physical appearance, what else did you notice from him if any? A "Yun lang po, yung pananamit niya, yung nakawhite t-shirt siya, yun lang po yung physical niya, color niya."33
It is known that the most natural reaction of a witness to a crime is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrator and to observe the manner in which the offense is perpetrated. Most often the face of the assailant and body movements thereof, create a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from a witness's memory. Experience dictates that precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, eyewitnesses can remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of criminals at any given time.38 (Citations omitted)Due to 1) the unusual situation that Michael, Gina and Corazon just witnessed, 2) the brief period they allegedly saw the assailant's face,39 and 3) their position relative to where the assailant was, We find it difficult to believe that they were able to accurately identify the assailant. We cannot disregard the possibility that the prosecution witnesses committed an error in identifying the assailant. The interim period of about one (1) week from the time of the incident and the time they gave their sworn statement to the authorities and identified Ramon from the police line-up could have affected their ability to recall the assailant's identity. The prosecution witnesses did not testify about any distinguishing mark nor significant feature of Ramon's physical appearance, other than his height and skin complexion, that they relied on in recognizing the assailant during the police line-up and trial. They also admitted that they have never met nor seen the assailant prior to the incident40 which compels the Court to doubt the accuracy of their recollection. To Our mind, these factors, when taken as a whole, diminish the credibility of the witnesses and raise doubt on the truthfulness of their testimonies and their identification of Ramon as the assailant.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, p. 18, Notice of Appeal.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring; id. at 2-17.
3 Id. at 16.
4 Records, pp. 1-2, Information.
5 Id. at 1.
6 Also referred to as MariƱas in some parts.
7 Records, p. 5.
8 TSN, August 28, 2014, p. 262.
9 Records, p. 5.
10 Id. at 76.
11 Id. at 77.
12 Id. at 76-77.
13 TSN, October 29, 2014, pp. 359-360.
14 Id. at 337-350.
15 Penned by Presiding Judge Editha G. Mina-Aguba; CA rollo, pp. 18-26.
16 Id. at 26.
17 Id. at 22-25.
18 Id. at 49-62.
19 Id. at 49.
20 TSN, October 29, 2014, pp. 359-360.
21Rollo, pp. 2-17.
22 Id. at 16.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 18.
25 Id. at 21-22.
26 319 Phil. 128 (1995).
27 Id. at 180.
28 TSN, August 20, 2014, p. 249.
29 Id. at 250.
30 Id. at 233.
31 Id. at 246-247.
32 TSN, August 14, 2014, p. 175.
33 Id. at 177-178.
34 Records, p. 90.
35 TSN, August 14, 2014, p. 189; TSN, August 20, 2014, pp. 229-230.
36 TSN, August 28, 2014, p. 270.
37 631 Phil. 547 (2010).
38 Id. at 555-556.
39 TSN, August 20, 2014, p. 251.
40 TSN, August 28, 2014, p. 290.
41People v. Magning, 452 Phil. 1026, 1044 (2003).