SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 176159, September 11, 2008]

PEOPE O! "#E P#IIPPINES, P$IN"I!!%$PPEEE, VS. EE RODRIGO, &O#N
DOE ' ()NSO, $ND PE"ER DOE ' *N%*N, $CC)SED.
EE RODRIGO, $CC)SED%$PPE$N".
D E C I S I O N
(RION, &.+
Before us for review is the Decision
[1]
dated September 18, 2006 of the Court of ppea!s "CA# in
C$%&'& C'&$(&C& )o& 01*+1 which affirmed with modification
[2]
the decision dated ,une 2-,
200* of the 'e.iona! /ria! Court "RTC#, Branch 11, 0a!o!os Cit1, Bu!acan in Crim& Case )o&
21-$0$2001&
[+]
/he '/C3s decision found the accused$appe!!ant 4ee 'odri.o "Rodrigo# .ui!t1
be1ond reasonab!e doubt of the crime of robber1 with homicide, and sentenced him as fo!!ows5
6(7'789'7, this Court finds the herein accused, 4ee 'odri.o, %:;4/< be1ond reasonab!e
doubt of 'obber1 with (omicide under rtic!e 22=, par& 1 of the 'evised >ena! Code and hereb1
sentences him to suffer the pena!t1 of Reclusion Perpetua and to pa1 the heirs of the !ate >a?uito
Buna the fo!!owin. sums of mone1, to wit5
1& [>*0,000&00] as civi! indemnit1@
2& >*0,000&00 as mora! dama.es@ and
+& >60,000&00 as actua! dama.es&
A A A
S9 9'D7'7D&
",e $-te.e/e-t0
/he basic facts of the robber1 with homicide are not disputed& /he spouses >a?uito Buna and
'osita Cabrera$Buna
[=]
"Rosita# owned a restaurant !ocated at rea ( in San 'afae!, Bu!acan&
/he spouses were in their restaurant at around 10520 a&m& on 9ctober 2-, 2000 to.ether with
their two he!pers@ >a?uito was cooBin. in the Bitchen whi!e 'osita and the he!pers were
attendin. to two customers& /hree men, armed with .uns, sudden!1 entered the restaurant,
dec!ared a ho!dup, and immediate!1 proceeded to divest the two customers of their mone1 and
the restaurant of its earnin.s of >*00&00& 6hi!e the robber1 was in pro.ress, >a?uito came out of
the Bitchen and, seein. what was happenin., .rabbed a CbangkoC@ he was instant!1 fired upon
three times b1 one of the armed men whi!e the other two turned their bacBs and !au.hed& fter
the robbers !eft, 'osita rushed >a?uito to the hospita! where he was pronounced dead on arriva!&
'osita afterwards fi!ed a crimina! comp!aint throu.h her Sinumpaang Salaysay "dated )ovember
2=, 2000#
[*]
where she identified 'odri.o as amon. the men who robbed the restaurant and Bi!!ed
her husband& 9n 8ebruar1 28, 2001, 'odri.o and two men bearin. the a!iases of CLyn Lyn"
[6]
and
CBunsoC were forma!!1 char.ed of the specia! comp!eA crime of robber1 with homicide& /he
;nformation
[-]
reads5
/hat on or about the 2-
th
da1 of 9ctober, 2000, in the 0unicipa!it1 of San ,ose de! 0onte,
>rovince of Bu!acan, >hi!ippines, and within the Durisdiction of this (onorab!e Court, the above$
named accused, conspirin., confederatin. to.ether and mutua!!1 he!pin. one another, armed
with short firearms, did then and there wi!!fu!!1, un!awfu!!1 and fe!onious!1, with intent of .ain
and b1 means of force, vio!ence and intimidation, taBe, rob, and carr1 awa1 with them >*00&00
be!on.in. to the spouses >a?uito Buna and 'osita Cabrera$Buna, to the dama.e and preDudice of
the said spouses in the amount of >*00&00@ and on the occasion of the commission of the said
robber1 or b1 reason thereof, the herein accused, in furtherance of their conspirac1, did then and
there wi!!fu!!1, un!awfu!!1 and fe!onious!1, attacB, assau!t and shoot with the short firearms
>a?uito Buna, thereb1 inf!ictin. on him serious ph1sica! inDuries which direct!1 caused his death&
Contrar1 to !aw&
'odri.o was arrested on 0a1 22, 2001& /he other two accused remain at !ar.e& 'odri.o p!eaded
not .ui!t1 upon arrai.nment and tria! on the merits subse?uent!1 fo!!owed&
/he prosecution introduced two witnesses $ 'osita and Dr& ;van 'ichard Eira1, the medico$!e.a!
officer whose testimon1 was dispensed with b1 a.reement of the parties&
[8]
/hus, 'osita stood as
the prosecution3s on!1 witness on the identit1 of the accused and on the commission of the crime&
s an e1ewitness, 'osita identified 'odri.o in court as one of the three armed men who robbed
the restaurant and its customers&
[2]
She testified that she saw 'odri.o as one of the robbers who
entered the restaurant@ that one of the three immediate!1 dec!ared a ho!dup@
[10]
that 'odri.o had a
firearm in his possession@
[11]
that he brandished his firearm and threatened the occupants of the
restaurant in the course of the robber1@
[12]
and that 'odri.o !eft with the other robbers after
achievin. their evi! purpose&
[1+]
9n re$cross$eAamination, 'osita admitted that she initially identified 'odri.o b1 means of a
photo.raph shown to her at the po!ice station@ the photo.raph was the on!1 one shown to her at
that time&
[1=]

fter the presentation of the fo!!owin. documentar1 evidence5 "a# Sinumpaang Salaysay dated
)ovember 2=, 2000 of 'osita Buna "7Ahibits CC and C$1C#@
[1*]
"b# 4ist of 7Apenses ;ncurred
for the waBe, funera!, and buria! of >a?uito Buna "7Ahibit CBC with submarBin.s#@
[16]
and "c#
Certificate of Death of >a?uito Buna "7Ahibit CCC#,
[1-]
the prosecution rested its case&
/he case for the defense re!ied so!e!1 on the testimon1 of 'odri.o who interposed the defenses
of denial and alibi&
[18]
(e c!aimed that he was at his house at 8E' ;, )orFa.ara1, Bu!acan with
his wife, cousin, and nei.hbor on the a!!e.ed date and time of the commission of the crime& (e
was at the time watchin. te!evision whi!e taBin. care of his chi!d& 9n cross$eAamination, he
admitted that the distance from Baran.a1 San 'afae!, Sapan. >a!a1 to his house was more or
!ess one Bi!ometer@ the distance can be covered in 10 minutes throu.h a sin.!e tric1c!e and
Deepne1 ride& (e a!so admitted that he came to Bnow that he was bein. imp!icated in the case two
da1s after the 9ctober 2-, 2000 robber1$Bi!!in. incident&
[12]
/he '/C convicted 'odri.o on ,une 2-, 200* of the crime of robber1 with homicide on the basis
of 'osita3s testimon1 which the court found to be candid, strai.htforward, firm, and without an1
trace of an1 improper motive& /his testimon1, an e1ewitness account, confirmed that 'osita saw
'odri.o as amon. the three robbers who robbed the restaurant and who f!ed after divestin. the
restaurant of its earnin.s and the customers of their mone1, Bi!!in. >a?uito in the course of the
robber1& /he '/C dec!ared that it was not important that 'odri.o did not actua!!1 shoot >a?uito
since there was a conspirac1@ it did not matter who amon. the conspirators did the actua!
shootin. as the act of one was the act of a!!, and a!! were e?ua!!1 !iab!e& /he court refused to
be!ieve 'odri.o3s defenses of denial and alibi in the absence of an1 corroboratin. evidence and
in !i.ht of 'osita3s positive and cate.orica! e1ewitness identification and account of the crime&
/he C, to where 'odri.o appea!ed his conviction, affirmed the !ower court3s decision, with the
modification that the award of civi! indemnit1 shou!d be reduced to >*0,000&00& s the !ower
court did, the C .ave premium to 'osita3s identification when it said5 C& & .Rodrigo was
positively identiied by Rosita Buna as one o t!e t!ree "#$ armed men w!o perpetrated t!e
crime. S!e was straig!torward in narrating !ow accused%appellant Rodrigo and !is co!orts
entered t!eir restaurant& armed wit! guns and declared a !old%up. . ." 9n the matter of
identification, the appe!!ate court si.nificant!1 noted that5 Rosita identified accused-appellant
Rodrigo from the picture shown to her at the police station, and months later when she saw
him in San Jose del Monte Police Station, and t!at s!e pointed to accused%appellant Rodrigo
inside t!e courtroom during t!e trial o t!e case as among t!ose w!o robbed t!em in t!eir
restaurant.
'()*
'odri.o e!evated his conviction to this Court, citin. the fo!!owin. reversib!e errors committed b1
the '/C and C in their decisions5
"1# ;n convictin. 'odri.o of the crime char.ed despite the fai!ure of the prosecution to prove
his .ui!t be1ond reasonab!e doubt@ and
"2# ;n re!1in. on the a!!e.ed weaBness of the defense evidence rather than on the stren.th of the
prosecution evidence&
'odri.o particu!ar!1 cited the inconsistencies in 'osita3s testimon1 re.ardin. his participation in
the crime& ;n his view, these inconsistencies, to.ether with his a!ibi, showed that he was not
actua!!1 present at the crime scene& /he identification 'osita made at "t!e police station was not
suicient and convincing to lead one to believe t!at Lee Rodrigo was among t!e maleactors.
T!e act o t!e wie "!erein witness$ is e+pected rom someone w!o !ad ,ust lost a loved one
une+pectedly and in an unacceptable manner. Suc! orm o identiication clearly impaired !er
credibility as a witness.C
[21]
8urther, 'odri.o asserted5
(owever, before the doctrine that positive identification prevai!s over denia! or a!ibi ma1 app!1,
it is necessar1 that the identification must first be shown to be positive and be1ond ?uestion&
7ven thou.h inherent!1 weaB, the defense of a!ibi or denia! nonethe!ess ac?uires commensurate
stren.th where no positive and proper identification has been made b1 the prosecution witness of
the offender, as the prosecution sti!! has the onus probandi in estab!ishin. the .ui!t of the
accused& "People v. Crispin, +2- SC' 16-#& 6hi!e it is true that denia! and a!ibi are weaB
defenses, it is e?ua!!1 sett!ed that where the evidence of the prosecution is itse!f feeb!e,
particu!ar!1 as to the identit1 of the accused as the author of the crime, the defense of denia! and
a!ibi assume importance and ac?uire commensurate stren.th& "People v. -iganto& Sr& ++6 SC'
22=#&
[22]
8or its part, the >eop!e banBed on the .reat wei.ht accorded to the factua! findin.s of the tria!
court, .iven its uni?ue position of havin. observed the witnesses whi!e testif1in.& ;t heavi!1
re!ied, too, on 'osita3s credibi!it1 and the positive identification she made as an e1ewitness,
[2+]

and the fact that she was not actuated b1 an1 improper motive&
[2=]
>redictab!1, the >eop!e derided
the a!ibi for bein. inherent!1 weaB and for fai!ure to demonstrate that it was ph1sica!!1
impossib!e for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission&
[2*]
O1r R123-4
5e 63-/ t,e pet3t3o- 3mpre00e/ 73t, mer3t 8-/ 8.913t Ro/r34o o6 t,e .r3me .,8r4e/.
Pre01mpt3o- o6 I--o.e-.e
6hi!e an accused stands before the court burdened b1 a previous pre!iminar1 investi.ation
findin. that there is probable cause to be!ieve that he committed the crime char.ed, t!e ,udicial
determination o !is guilt or innocence necessarily starts wit! t!e recognition o !is
constitutional rig!t to be presumed innocent o t!e c!arge !e aces. /his princip!e, a ri.ht of the
accused, is enshrined no !ess in our Constitution&
[26]
;t embodies as we!! a dut1 on the part of the
court to ascertain that no person is made to answer for a crime un!ess his .ui!t is proven be1ond
reasonab!e doubt&
[2-]
;ts primar1 conse?uence in our crimina! Dustice s1stem is the basic ru!e that
the prosecution carries the burden of overcomin. the presumption throu.h proof of .ui!t of the
accused be1ond reasonab!e doubt& /hus, a crimina! case rises or fa!!s on the stren.th of the
prosecution3s case, not on the weaBness of the defense& 9nce the prosecution overcomes the
presumption of innocence b1 provin. the e!ements of the crime and the identit1 of the accused as
perpetrator be1ond reasonab!e doubt, the burden o evidence then shifts to the defense which
sha!! then test the stren.th of the prosecution3s case either b1 showin. that no crime was in fact
committed or that the accused cou!d not have committed or did not commit the imputed crime, or
at the ver1 !east, b1 castin. doubt on the .ui!t of the accused& 6e point a!! these out as the1 are
the princip!es and d1namics that sha!! .uide and structure the review of this case&
:o/e o6 Re;3e7
6e mention, too, that the review of a case opens the who!e case for our consideration, inc!udin.
the ?uestions not raised b1 the parties&
[28]
9ur ro!e in the Dustice s1stem is not so much to pena!iFe
as to see that Dustice is done& /owards this end, ours is the ob!i.ation to eAp!ore a!! aspects of a
case, inc!udin. those that the parties have .!ossed over or have not fu!!1 eAp!ored&
/he Court, in dischar.in. its mandated dut1, is tasBed to consider two crucia! points in sustainin.
a Dud.ment of conviction5 first, the identification of the accused as perpetrator of the crime,
taBin. into account the credibi!it1 of the prosecution witness who made the identification as we!!
as the prosecution3s comp!iance with !e.a! and constitutiona! standards@ and second, a!! the
e!ements constitutin. the crime were du!1 proven b1 the prosecution to be present& 8ai!in. in
either of these, a Dud.ment for ac?uitta! is in order&
I/e-t363.8t3o- o6 t,e $..10e/
/he .reatest care shou!d be taBen in considerin. the identification of the accused especia!!1,
when this identification is made b1 a so!e witness and the Dud.ment in the case tota!!1 depends
on the re!iabi!it1 of the identification& /his !eve! of care and circumspection app!ies with .reater
vi.or when, as in the present case, the issue .oes be1ond pure credibi!it1 into constitutiona!
dimensions arisin. from the due process ri.hts of the accused&
;n the present case, the records show that 'odri.o3s arrest and eventua! conviction were who!!1
based on the testimon1 of 'osita who testified as an e1ewitness and who identified 'odri.o as
one of the perpetrators of the crime& /o the prosecution, the tria! court, and the appe!!ate court, an
e1ewitness identification comin. from the widow of the victim appeared to have been enou.h to
?ua!if1 the identification as fu!!1 positive and credib!e& /hus, none of them appeared to have
fu!!1 eAamined the rea! evidentiar1 worth of the identification 'osita made& /he defense, for its
part, .rasped the possib!e f!aw in the prosecution3s case, but did not fu!!1 pursue its case and its
ar.uments on the basis of the eAistin. Durisprudence on the matter&
/he aspect of this case that remains uneAp!ored, despite the avai!abi!it1 of supportin. evidence,
is 'osita3s out%o%court identification of 'odri.o, done for the first time throu.h a !one
photo.raph shown to her at the po!ice station, and subse?uent!1, b1 persona! confrontation at the
same po!ice station at an undisc!osed time "presumab!1, soon after 'odri.o3s arrest#&
,urisprudence has acBnow!ed.ed that out%o%court identification of an accused throu.h
photo.raphs or mu. shots is one of the estab!ished procedures in pinnin. down crimina!s&
[22]

9ther procedures for out%o%court identifications ma1 be conducted throu.h s!ow%ups where the
suspect a!one is brou.ht face to face with the witness "a procedure that appears to have been
done in the present case as admitted b1 'osita
[+0]
and noted in the decision
[+1]
#, or throu.h line%
ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a .roup of persons !ined up for the purpose&
[+2]
/he initia! photo.raphic identification in this case carries serious constitutiona! !aw imp!ications
in terms of t!e possible violation o t!e due process rig!ts o t!e accused as it ma1 den1 him his
rig!ts to a air trial to the eAtent that his in%court identification proceeded from and was
inf!uenced b1 impermissib!e su..estions in the ear!ier photo.raphic identification& ;n the conteAt
of this case, the investi.ators mi.ht not have been fair to 'odri.o if the1 themse!ves, purpose!1
or unwittin.!1, fiAed in the mind of 'osita, or at !east active!1 prepared her mind to, the thou.ht
that 'odri.o was one of the robbers& 7ffective!1, this act is no different from coercin. a witness
in identif1in. an accused, var1in. on!1 with respect to the means used& 7ither wa1, the po!ice
investi.ators are the rea! actors in the identification of the accused@ evidence of identification is
effective!1 created when none rea!!1 eAists&
;n People v. Pineda, we had occasion to eAp!ain photo.raphic identification and the dan.ers it
spawns5 an impermissib!e su..estion and the risB that the e1ewitness wou!d identif1 the person
he or she saw in the photo.raph and not the person she saw actua!!1 committin. the crime, thus5
&&& [6]here a photo.raph has been identified as that of the .ui!t1 part1, an1 subse?uent corporea!
identification of that person ma1 be based not upon the witness3 reco!!ection of the features of the
.ui!t1 part1, but upon his reco!!ection of the photo.raph& /hus, a!thou.h a witness who is asBed
to attempt a corporea! identification of a person whose photo.raph he previous!1 identified ma1
sa1, C/hat3s the man that did it,C what he ma1 actua!!1 mean is, C/hat3s the man whose
photo.raph ; identified&C
AAA AAA AAA
reco.nition of this ps1cho!o.ica! phenomenon !eads !o.ica!!1 to the conc!usion that where a
witness has made a photo.raphic identification of a person, his subse?uent corporea!
identification of that same person is somewhat impaired in va!ue, and its accurac1 must be
eva!uated in !i.ht of the fact that he first saw a photo.raph&
[++]
6e confirmed the eAistence of this dan.er in People v. Tee!ankee where the Court tacB!ed the
re!iabi!it1 of out%o%court identifications as an issue@ we reco.niFed that the harmfu! effects on
the ri.hts of the accused of these t1pes of identification can .o as far as and contaminate in%court
identification&
[+=]
SpeaBin. throu.h 0r& ,ustice "now Chief ,ustice# 'e1nato >uno, the Court said5
;t is understandab!e for appe!!ant to assai! his out%o%court identiication b1 the prosecution
witnesses in his first assi.nment of error& 71ewitness identification carries vita! evidence and, in
most cases, decisive of the success or fai!ure of the prosecution& <et, whi!e e1ewitness
identification is si.nificant, it is not as accurate and authoritative as the scientific forms of
identification evidence such as the fin.erprint or D) testin.& Some authors even describe
e1ewitness evidence as Cinherent!1 suspect&C /he causes of misidentification are Bnown, thus5
A A A
;dentification testimon1 has at !east three components& 8irst, witnessin. a crime, whether as a
victim or a b1stander, invo!ves perception of an event actua!!1 occurrin.& Second, the witness
must memoriFe detai!s of the event& /hird, the witness must be ab!e to reca!! and communicate
accurate!1& .angers o unreliability in eyewitness testimony arise at eac! o t!ese t!ree stages&
or w!enever people attempt to ac/uire& retain& and retrieve inormation accurately& t!ey are
limited to normal !uman allibilities and suggestive inluences.
[+*]
[7mphasis Supp!ied]&
;n People v. Pineda, we a!so !aid down the proper procedure on photo.raphic identification,
name!15 63r0t, a series of photo.raphs must be shown and not mere!1 that of the suspect@ and
0e.o-/, when a witness is shown a .roup of pictures, their arran.ement and disp!a1 shou!d in no
wa1 su..est which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect&
[+6]
0n t!ese cases& we emp!asi1ed
t!at p!otograp!ic identiication s!ould be ree rom any impermissible suggestions t!at would
single out a person to t!e attention o t!e witness making t!e identiication.
[+-]
",8t 8 03-42e p,oto4r8p,, -ot 8 0er3e0, 780 0,o7- to Ro03t8 30 8/m3tte/ b< Ro03t8 ,er0e26 3-
,er te0t3mo-<. /he fo!!owin. eAchan.es transpired at her re$direct eAamination5
8isca!5
"to the witness#
G )ow, when 1ou saw the accused 4ee 'odri.o, how did 1ou see 4ee 'odri.o to [sic] the
>o!ice StationH
(is picture was shown to me and ; to!d the po!ice that he is the one, sir&
G /his 4ee 'odri.o, the accused in this caseH
<es, sir&
[+8]
reinforced b1 the fo!!owin. on re$cross$eAamination5
tt1& 'o?ue5
G <ou said, 0adam witness, that 1ou Bnew the accused throu.h picture shown to 1ou, am
; correctH
<es, sir&
G 5,o 0,o7e/ <o1 t,e p3.t1re=
$ Po23.e :or8/o, 03r.
> #o7 m8-< p3.t1re0 7ere 0,o7- to <o1=
$ &10t o-e o-2<, 03r.
> O-2< t,e 8..10e/ 3- t,30 .80e, ee Ro/r34o=
$ *e0, 03r.
[+2]
"7mphasis supp!ied#
/his testimonia! admission has its roots in 'osita3s Sinumpaang Salaysay ""Salaysay," 7Ahs& CC
and C$1C#
[=0]
that .ave the fo!!owin. detai!s of this same out$of$court identification as fo!!ows5
12&
/$5
Sino ba an. sinasabi mon. pumasoB sa !oob n. i1on. 'estaurant na armado n. m.a
bari! at nan.ho!dap una sa Bomba1 at bumari! dito sa i1on. asawa at pa.Batapos
Binuha pa and benta n. i1on. 'estaurantH
S5 ;to sina 477 '9D';%9, !1as B:)S9 at isan. !1as 4<) 4<) po&
1+&
/$5
Ii!a!a mo ba iton. nasabin. m.a suspects na armado n. bari! at pumata1 sa i1on.
asawa matapos man.ho!dapH
S$5 Hindi o sila ilala pero sinabi sa akin ni C!ito Alicante na driver ng nagdedeliver ng
Coca Cola na ang mga pangalan ay Alyas Bunso at Alyas L23L23 at ang isa dito si
L44 R5.R0-5 dito o nalang !sic" nalaman ang tunay na pangalan sa himpilan ng
pulisya ng ipaita sa ain and anyang retrato na siya ang naita ung unang
#umaril sa aing asawa at umuha ng pera na ita ng aming Restaurant$ [emphasis
supp!ied]&
/hus, the prosecution3s evidence themse!ves, both documentar1 and testimonia!, show that the
po!ice investi.ator1 procedure vio!ated the Durisprudentia! ru!e we cited above& /o reasonab!1
determine whether this f!awed procedure indeed !ed to an unre!iab!e in$court identification, we
a.ain harB bacB to Tee!ankee for the ver1 usefu! .uide!ines it provided5
[=1]
;n reso!vin. the admissibi!it1 of and re!1in. on out$of$court identification of suspects, courts
have adopted t!e totality o circumstances test where the1 consider the fo!!owin. factors, vi15 "1#
the witness3 opportunit1 to view the crimina! at the time of the crime@ "2# the witness3 de.ree of
attention at the time@ "+# the accurac1 of an1 prior description .iven b1 the witness@ "=# the !eve!
of certaint1 demonstrated b1 the witness at the identification@ "*# the !en.th of time between the
crime and the identification@ and "6# the su..estiveness of the identification procedure&
nother we!!$Bnown authorit1 on e1ewitness identification, >atricB 0& 6a!!, made a !ist of 12
dan.er si.na!s that eAist independent!1 of the identification procedures investi.ators use&
[=2]

/hese si.na!s .ive warnin. that the identification ma1 be erroneous even thou.h the method
used is proper&
[=+]
9utside of the siA factors mentioned in Tee!ankee& two dan.er si.na!s in 6a!!3s
!ist are re!evant in the case before us, name!15 "1# the !imited opportunit1 on the part of the
witness to see the accused beore the commission of the crime@ and "2# the fact that severa!
persons committed the crime& 6e sha!! consider them a!! in passin. upon the re!iabi!it1 of
'osita3s in%court identification in the discussions be!ow&
1& Ro03t8 /3/ -ot ?-o7 t,e robber0& critica! point in the tota!it1 of 'osita3s testimon1,
admitted as ear!1 as her )ovember 2=, 2001 Sinumpaang Salaysay, is that she did not Bnow the
robbers& ;n other words, she saw them for the first time durin. the robber1& /his fact can maBe a
!ot of difference as human eAperience te!!s us5 in the reco.nition of faces, the mind is more
certain when the faces re!ate to those a!read1 in the mind3s memor1 banB@ converse!1, it is not
eas1 to reca!! or identif1 someone we have met on!1 once or whose appearance we have not
fiAed in our mind&
2& 8.? o6 8-< pr3or /e0.r3pt3o-. 9ther than .ivin. 'odri.o3s name in her Sinumpaang
Salaysay and confirmin. that $ dito ko nalang [sic] nalaman ang tunay na pangalan sa !impilan
ng pulisya ng ipakita sa akin ang kanyang retrato na siya and nakita kung [sic] unang Bumaril
sa aking asawa at kumu!a ng pera na kita ng aming Restaurant $ 'osita provided -o ot,er
/e0.r3pt3o- of 'odri.o or of the other two, whether in her Sinumpaang Salaysay or in court& /he
ori.ina! records of the case in fact contain no record of statements secured from witnesses
immediate!1 after the crime was committed on 9ctober 2-, 2000& /hus, there is no basis to
compare 'osita3s or an1 other witnesses3 immediate reco!!ection of what transpired at the crime
scene and the description of the perpetrators, with 'osita3s photo.raphic identification and her
in$court identification at the tria!& /his is a .!arin. .ap in the po!ice investi.ation and one that
!eaves 'osita3s identification unsupported, .iven the absence of corroborative evidence from
other witnesses&
+& Opport1-3t< to ;3e7 t,e .r3m3-820 8-/ /e4ree o6 6o.10 8t t,e t3me& 'osita3s first encounter
with the robbers $ peop!e she did not Bnow before $ happened ;er< br3e62< durin. a ;er<
,orr36<3-4 e@per3e-.e when her husband was shot and Bi!!ed& 6hether the event and its detai!s
etched themse!ves in 'osita3s memor1 or whether ever1thin. happened in a b!ur is hard to sa1
with definite certaint1 and shou!d be .au.ed throu.h 'osita3s consistenc1 in testif1in. on other
aspects of the case&
=& N1mber o6 .r3m3-820 3-;o2;e/A /e4ree o6 6o.10 o- t,e .r3m3-820. 6ith t,ree robber0
3-;o2;e/,
[==]
'osita3s focus and attention cou!d not have been tota! on an1 one robber a!one& ;n
fact, if one robber shou!d have cau.ht her attention at a!!, he wou!d have been the one who shot
her husband and who, b1 her own testimon1, was not 'odri.o whom she various!1 c!aimed to be
outside the restaurant at that time or robbin. her ;ndian customer&
[=*]
*& "3me e2eme-t 8tte-/8-t to 3/e-t363.8t3o-. /he time e!ement invo!ved in the process of
identification is shown b1 the se?uence of events fo!!owin. the robber1$homicide on 9ctober 2-,
2000& /he ear!iest document on record subse?uent to the crime is 'osita3s Sinumpaang Salaysay
of )ovember 2=, 2000 where 'osita si.nificant!1 mentioned that she did not Bnow the robbers
and that one Chito !icante .ave her their names& /he ;nformation a.ainst 'odri.o was fi!ed
with the court on 8ebruar1 28, 2001
[=6]
and the warrant of arrest was issued on!1 on pri! 18,
2001&
[=-]
/he records do not show when 'osita saw 'odri.o at the San ,ose de! 0onte >o!ice
Station
[=8]
"as the C decision noted# but this presumab!1 happened on!1 after his arrest on pri!
18, 2001 or * J months after the crime& /hereafter, 'osita identified 'odri.o in court on pri!
10, 2002, or more than 1* months after the crime& /hus, 'osita on!1 saw 'odri.o twice before
the1 met in court@ 63r0t, at the crime scene as she a!!e.ed@ and, 0e.o-/, at the San ,ose de! 0onte
>o!ice Station under circumstances that do not appear in the records&
6& S144e0t3;e-e00 o6 t,e p,oto4r8p,3. 3/e-t363.8t3o-. s we have a!read1 noted, at no point did
'osita describe the robbers so that a taBe$off point for comparison can be made& 'osita simp!1
made her photo.raphic identification of 'odri.o as fo!!ows5
21&
/$5
0a1roon aBon. ipapaBita dito sa i1on. isan. retrato, ano an. masasabi mo ditoH
S$5 ;1an po an. tumutoB sa Bomba1 pa.Batapos Binuha an. pera at ina [sic] bumari! dito
sa aBin. asawa& BI-;e0t348tor 0,o73-4 to t,e .omp283-3-4 73t-e00 o6 p3.t1re o6
010pe.t EE RODRIGOC. [emphasis supp!ied]
Si.nificant!1, this identification came a month after the crime $ a !on. month when the po!ice
appeared to have achieved no headwa1 in their investi.ation "a!thou.h 'odri.o himse!f admitted
that he heard from a po!iceman$nei.hbor that he was Cimp!icatedC in the crime two da1s after its
commission
[=2]
#& B1 her own account, 'osita on!1 !earned the names of the robbers from
information .iven b1 one Chito !icante who never appeared as a witness in the case&
[*0]
/he
photo.raphic identification was made at the po!ice station b1 showin. her the !one photo.raph of
'odri.o 7,o 780 e@pre002< -ote/ 3- t,e Sinumpaang Salaysay 80 8 D010pe.t.D /hus, 'osita,
who did not Bnow the robbers, initia!!1 fiAed them in her mind throu.h their names that Chito
!icante supp!ied, and subse?uent!1, !inBed the name 4ee 'odri.o to the faces she saw in the
photo.raph the po!ice presented as the suspect& )ote that b1 providin. on!1 a !one photo.raph,
comp!ete with a name identified as the suspect, the po!ice did not even .ive 'osita the option to
identif1 'odri.o from amon. severa! photo.raphed suspects@ the po!ice simp!1 confronted her
with the photo.raph of 'odri.o as the suspect&
-& Ro03t8E0 .o-030te-.< re.ardin. 'odri.o3s precise ro!e in the robber1 !eaves much to be
desired&
[*1]
;t is a matter of record that she testified that 'odri.o entered the restaurant a!on. with
his two cohorts,
[*2]
but she subse?uent!1 dec!ared that 'odri.o was outside the restaurant
brandishin. his firearm&
[*+]
She a!so dec!ared on cross$eAamination that 'odri.o was one of those
who robbed the ;ndian,
[*=]
but on re$direct, he dec!ared that he did not touch the ;ndian nor taBe
his va!uab!es@ he Dust stood there&
[**]
;t is noteworth1 that whi!e 'osita appeared c!ear, cate.orica!,
and definite about the participations of 41n$!1n and Bunso in the robber1, she fai!ed to do the
same with respect to 'odri.o3s ro!e in the crime& n aspect that never saw !i.ht durin. the tria!
was the statement in the Sinumpaang Salaysay that there were other participants in the crime,
a!beit hearsa1, who served as !ooBouts, name!1, 'icB1 de !a CruF, 0ateo 0a!son a!ias C0iBe,C
and Cardin. 9ronos& )o eAp!anation can be .!eaned from the evidence on what happened to
these identified possib!e accomp!ices& /he Salaysay a!so mentions the peop!e with 'osita in the
restaurant, name!1, the he!pers and the customers& )one of these e1ewitnesses was ever ca!!ed
upon to testif1& 6hi!e these discrepancies and .aps ma1 appear to be trivia! in considerin. the
e!ements of the crime, the1 assume si.nificant materia!it1 in considerin. the weaBness of
'odri.o3s identification as one of the robbers&
Separate!1 from these considerations, we entertain serious doubts about the va!idit1 of the
reasonin., made b1 both the tria! and the appe!!ate courts, that a widow3s testimon1 $ particu!ar!1,
her identification of the accused $ shou!d be accepted and he!d as credib!e simp!1 because the
defense fai!ed to show b1 evidence that she had reasons to fa!sif1&
[*6]
r.uab!1, a widow who testifies about the Bi!!in. of her husband has no motive other than to see
that Dustice is done so that her testimon1 shou!d be considered tota!!1 credib!e& /his assumption,
however, is not the same as the conc!usion that a witness is credib!e because the defense has not
shown an1 i!! motive that wou!d motivate him or her to fa!se!1 testif1& Strict!1 speaBin., this
conc!usion shou!d app!1 on!1 to third parties who are detached from and who have no persona!
interest in the incident that .ave rise to the tria!& Because of their presumed detachment, the
testimonies of these detached parties can be presumed credib!e un!ess impu.ned b1 the adverse
part1 throu.h a showin. of an i!! or u!terior motive on the part of the witnesses&
/he presumed detachment that app!ies to third parties obvious!1 cannot app!1 to a widow whose
husband has been Bi!!ed, or for that matter, to a re!ative whose Bin is the victim, when the
testimon1 of the widow or the re!ative is offered in the tria! of the Bi!!er& /he widow or the
re!atives are not detached or disinterested witnesses@ the1 are parties who suffered and
eAperienced pain as a resu!t of the Bi!!in.& ;n fact, the1 are better characteriFed as aggrieved
parties as even the !aw reco.niFes them as such throu.h the .rant of indemnities and dama.es&
9ne rea!it1 about these a..rieved parties is that their reactions and responses to the crime var1&
;ndeed, for some of them, the interest of seein. that Dustice is done ma1 be paramount so that
the1 wi!! act strict!1 accordin. to !e.a! parameters despite their !oss and their .rief& t the
opposite eAtreme are those who ma1 not so act@ the1 ma1 want to sett!e and aven.e their !oss
irrespective of what the !aw and evidence ma1 indicate& ;n between these eAtremes are those who
ma1 not be outward!1 or conscious!1 affected, but whose Dud.ment with respect to the case and
its detai! ma1 be impaired b1 their !oss and .rief& !! these are rea!ities that we must be sensitive
to&
/hus, the testimonies from a..rieved parties shou!d not simp!istica!!1 be e?uated to or treated as
testimonies from detached parties& /heir testimonies shou!d be hand!ed with the rea!istic thou.ht
that the1 come from parties with materia! and emotiona! ties to the subDect of the !iti.ation so
that the1 cannot be accepted and he!d as credib!e simp!1 because the defense has not adduced
evidence of i!!$motivation& ;t is in this !i.ht that we have eAamined 'osita3s identification of
'odri.o, and we ho!d as unpersuasive the !ower courts3 conc!usion that 'osita deserved be!ief
because the defense had not adduced an1 evidence that she had motives to fa!se!1 testif1& /he
better ru!e, to our mind, is that the testimon1 of 'osita, as an a..rieved part1, must stand on its
independent merits, not on an1 fai!ure of the defense to adduce evidence of i!!$motivation&
Co-.2103o-
6e ho!d it hi.h!1 !iBe!1, based on the above considerations, that 'osita3s photo.raphic
identification was attended b1 an impermissib!e su..estion that tainted her in$court identification
of 'odri.o as one of the three robbers& 6e ru!e too that based on the other indicators of
unre!iabi!it1 we discussed above, 'osita3s identification cannot be considered as proof be1ond
reasonab!e doubt of the identit1 of 'odri.o as one of the perpetrators of the crime&
first si.nificant point to us is that 'osita did not identif1 a person whom she had Bnown or
seen in the past& /he robbers were tota! stran.ers whom she saw ver1 brief!1& ;t is unfortunate
that there is no direct evidence of how !on. the actua! robber1 and the accompan1in. homicide
!asted& But the crime, as described, cou!d not have taBen !on., certain!1 not more than a ?uarter
of an hour at its !on.est& /his time e!ement a!one raises the ?uestion of whether 'osita had
sufficient!1 focused on 'odri.o to remember him, and whether there cou!d have been a re!iab!e
independent reca!! of 'odri.o3s identit1&
6e a!so find it si.nificant that three robbers were invo!ved, a!! three brandishin. .uns, who
immediate!1 announced a ho!dup& /his is an unusua! event that ordinari!1 wou!d have !eft a
person in the scene nervous, confused, or in common par!ance, Cratt!ed&C /o this a!read1
uncommon event was added the shootin. of 'osita3s husband who char.ed the robbers with a
"bangko" and was prompt!1 shot, not once but three times& /hese factors add up to our
conc!usion of the un!iBe!ihood of an independent and re!iab!e identification&
6e have to factor in, too, into this conc!usion, the matter of 'osita3s motivation as we!! as her
frame of mind when she identified 'odri.o from a photo.raph& 6e taBe Dudicia! notice that
subse?uent to the crime was the victim3s buria!,
[*-]
a.ain an uncommon event attended b1 an
acute sense of !oss, .rief and, at the ver1 !east, disruption of and some measure of confusion in
the bereaved fami!13s dai!1 !ife& :ncertainties and a .ood measure of anAiet1 must have been
present, too, because of the !acB of an1 immediate si.nificant deve!opments in the investi.ation
of the case in its first month, i.e., between the time of the crime and 'osita3s Sinumpaang
Salaysay and photo.raphic identification& 6e note that the ori.ina! records of the case do not
even indicate the initia! investi.ator1 steps the po!ice undertooB, especia!!1 in terms of securin.
the statements of the immediate witnesses and the description of the crimina!s& :nder these facts,
it is more !iBe!1 than not that when the po!ice ca!!ed on 'osita to asB for the identification of the
!one suspect t!ey !ad already identiied, 'osita was prepared in her mind to be!ieve the po!ice, to
confirm the resu!ts of their investi.ation, and to identif1 the suspect as one of the perpetrators&
/hat 'odri.o was presented and identiied as a suspect is unmistaBab!1 indicated in 'osita3s
Sinumpaang Salaysay6
[*8]
that 'osita responded to the not$too$subt!e su..estion of the po!ice that
'odri.o was one of the robbers is ver1 !iBe!1& 6e note in this re.ard that 'osita does not appear
to have proper!1 sorted out in her mind the detai!s of what transpired on 9ctober 2-, 2000 as
demonstrated b1 the inconsistencies in her narration of the detai!s of the crime, notab!1 between
her Sinumpaang Salaysay and her in$court testimon1, as we!! as in the detai!s of her in$court
testimon1 as her narration and credibi!it1 were tested at the various sta.es of eAamination& /o be
sure, she correct!1 testified on the e!ements of the crime of robber1 with homicide and confirmed
that it was committed& )ot at the same !eve! of certaint1, however, are the respective ro!es of the
three perpetrators and their identities as the !atter appear to be based more on re!a1ed third$part1
information and on po!ice conc!usions rather than on 'osita3s own persona! reco!!ection of
events& t this !eve! of certaint1, we wou!d be vio!atin. the ri.hts of the accused to be presumed
innocent and to due process if we affirm the !ower courts3 decisions& (ence, 'odri.o3s ac?uitta!
on .round of reasonab!e doubt is in order&
Ep32o41e+ ",e De6e-0e0 o6 De-382 8-/ $23b3
6hi!e the defenses of denia! and a!ibi are inherent!1 weaB, the1 are on!1 so in the face of an
effective identification& 6here, as in the present case, the identification has been fata!!1 tainted
b1 irre.u!arit1 and attendant inconsistencies, doubt on the cu!pabi!it1 of the accused, at the ver1
!east, has been estab!ished without need to avai! of the defenses of denia! and a!ibi& ;n
constitutiona! !aw and crimina! procedure terms, the prosecution never overcame the
presumption of innocence that the accused enDo1ed so that the burden of evidence never shifted
to the defense& /hus, an1 consideration of the merits of these defenses is rendered moot and wi!!
serve no usefu! purpose&
5#ERE!ORE, premises considered, we REVERSE and SE" $SIDE the Decision dated
September 18, 2006 of the Court of ppea!s in C$%&'& C'&$(&C& )o& 01*+1& ccused$appe!!ant
477 '9D';%9 is hereb1 $C>)I""ED on t!e ground o reasonable doubt of the crime of
robber1 with homicide& 6e hereb1 ORDER #IS I::EDI$"E REE$SE un!ess there are
other va!id causes for his continued detention&
4et a cop1 of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections in 0untin!upa
Cit1 for his immediate imp!ementation& /he Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to
report to this Court within five da1s from receipt of this Decision the action he has taBen&
SO ORDERED.
7uisumbing& "C!airperson$& Carpio 8orales& Tinga, and 9elasco& :r.& ::., concur&
[1]
>enned b1 ssociate ,ustice 'emedios Sa!aFar$8ernando "as Chairperson# with ssociate
,ustice )oe! %& /iDam and ssociate ,ustice rturo /a1a. concurrin.@ C rollo, pp& 66$-=&
[2]
'educin. the award of civi! indemnit1 to >*0,000&00&
[+]
>enned b1 ,ud.e Basi!io '& %abo, ,r&@ C rollo& pp& 20$22&
[=]
/S)s, pri! 10, 2002, 0a1 22, 2002 and ,une 26, 2002&
[*]
>rosecution3s 7Ahibits CC and C$1C@ 'ecords, pp& *$6&
[6]
!so referred to as 4en.!en. in the records&
[-]
Records& p& 2&
[8]
/S), 9ctober 16, 2002, pp& +$=& /he prosecution and the defense stipu!ated that Dr& Eira1 wi!!
testif1 on the fo!!owin. matters5 "a# that he is a medico$!e.a! officer at the >)> Crime 9ffice in
0a!o!os, Bu!acan@ "b# that he conducted an autops1 on the bod1 of the victim >a?uito Buna on
9ctober 2-, 2000@ and "c# that the cause of death of >a?uito Buna in his >ost$0ortem Certificate
of Death is intracranial !emorr!age as a resu!t of .unshot wound in the head&
[2]
/S), pri! 10, 2002, p& *&
[10]
/S), ,une 26, 2002, p& 2&
[11]
0d&, p& 10&
[12]
0d&, pp& 2$10&
[1+]
0d.& p& 10&
[1=]
0d&, p& 11&
[1*]
Supra note *, p& 2&
[16]
Records& pp& 88$21&
[1-]
0d.& p& 8-&
[18]
/S), u.ust 2-, 200+&
[12]
0d., p& =&
[20]
C Decision, p& 6, C rollo, p& -1&
[21]
ccused$appe!!ant3s Brief@ C rollo& p& +6&
[22]
0d.& p& +-&
[2+]
Brief for the ppe!!ee@ id.& pp& **$*-&
[2=]
0d.
[2*]
0d., p& *8&
[26]
>(;4;>>;)7 C9)S/;/:/;9), Section 1=, rtic!e ;;;&
[2-]
Aguirre v. People, %&'& )o& 4$*601+, 9ctober +0, 128-, 1** SC' ++-, +=2&
[28]
People v. Pineda& %&'& )o& 1=16==, 0a1 1-, 200=, =22 SC' =-8, =2*&
[22]
People v. 9illena& %&'& )o& 1=0066, 9ctober 1=, 2002, +20 SC' 6+-, 6*0&
[+0]
/S), ,une 26, 2002, pp& *$6, 8&
[+1]
Supra note 20&
[+2]
People v. Tee!ankee, %&'& )os& 111206$08, 9ctober 6, 122*, 2=2 SC' *=, 2*&
[++]
Supra note 28, p& =28&
[+=]
Supra note +2, p& 2*&
[+*]
0d&, pp& 2=$2*&
[+6]
Supra note 28, pp& =2-$=28&
[+-]
0d., p& =28@ People v. 9illena, supra note 22, p& 6*0@ and People v. Tee!ankee, supra note +2,
p& 2*&
[+8]
/S), ,une 26, 2002, p& 8&
[+2]
0d.& p& 11&
[=0]
Supra note *&
[=1]
Citin.5 3eil v. Biggers, =02 :S 188 [12-+]@ 8anson v. Brat!waite, =+2 :S 28 [12--]@ De!
Carmen, Criminal Procedure& Law and Practice, +
rd
7dition, p& +=6&
[=2]
424%;0T34SS 0.43T0<0CAT053 03 CR0803AL CAS4 "126*#, pp& 20$1+0, where the author
pointed out 12 dan.er si.na!s that eAist independent!1 of the identification procedures
investi.ators use& /hese are5
C"1# the witness ori.ina!!1 stated that he cou!d not identif1 an1one@
"2# the identif1in. witness Bnew the accused before the crime, but made no accusation a.ainst
him when ?uestioned b1 the po!ice@
"+# a serious discrepanc1 eAists between the identif1in. witness3 ori.ina! description and the
actua! description of the accused@
"=# before identif1in. the accused at the tria!, the witness erroneous!1 identified some other
person@
"*# other witnesses to the crime fai! to identif1 the accused@
"6# before tria!, the witness sees the accused but fai!s to identif1 him@
"-# be6ore t,e .omm3003o- o6 t,e .r3me, t,e 73t-e00 ,8/ 23m3te/ opport1-3t< to 0ee t,e
8..10e/A
"8# the witness and the person identified are of different racia! .roups@
"2# durin. his ori.ina! observation of the perpetrator of the crime, the witness was unaware that
a crime was invo!ved@
"10# a considerab!e time e!apsed between the witness3 view of the crimina! and his identification
of the accused@
"11# severa! persons committed the crime@ and
"12# the witness fai!s to maBe a positive tria! identification&C Cited in People v. Pineda& supra
note 28, pp& *0+$*0=&
[=+]
0d.& p& *0+&
[==]
9ther records from the ori.ina! fi!e of the case su..est that there ma1 have been others who
did not enter the restaurant, but this has not been introduced in an1 of the materia!s adduced in
court@ records, p& 8&
[=*]
/S), pri! 10, 2002, p& 6@ and /S), ,une 26, 2002, p& 6&
[=6]
'ecords, p& 2&
[=-]
0d., p& 10&
[=8]
/S), ,une 26, 2002, pp& *$6&
[=2]
/S), u.ust 2-, 200+, p& =&
[*0]
/S), pri! 10, 2002, p& *&
[*1]
/S), ,une 26, 2002, p& 2@ and /S), pri! 10, 2002, p& 6
[*2]
/S), ,une 26, 2002, p& 2&
[*+]
/S), pri! 10, 2002, p& 6&
[*=]
/S), ,une 26, 2002, p& 6&
[**]
0d.& p& 2&
[*6]
'/C Decision, p& 2@ C Rollo, p& 21& C Decision, pp& 6, 8@ C Rollo, pp& -1, -+&
[*-]
;n this re.ard, see the evidence of eApenses attendant to the buria!&
[*8]
'ecords, p& *&
7$4ibrar1 Doc& ;D5 122=-2+-*1208-06=6+
'epub!ic of the >hi!ippines
S)PRE:E CO)R"
0ani!a
S7C9)D D;E;S;9)

G.R. No0. 111206%08 O.tober 6, 1995
PEOPE O! "#E P#IIPPINES, p!aintiff$appe!!ee,
vs&
C$)DIO "EE#$NFEE, &R., accused$appe!!ant&

P)NO, J$%
/hree "+# separate ;nformations were fi!ed a.ainst accused C!audio /eehanBee, ,r& for the
shootin. of 'o!and ,ohn Chapman, ,ussi 9!avi 4eino and 0aureen (u!tman& ;nitia!!1, he was
char.ed with5 0:'D7' for the Bi!!in. of '94)D C(>0), and two "2# 8':S/'/7D
0:'D7' for the shootin. and woundin. of ,:SS; 47;)9 and 0:'77) (:4/0)& 6hen
(u!tman died on 9ctober 1-, 1221, durin. the course of the tria!, the ;nformation for 8rustrated
0urder a.ainst accused was amended to 0:'D7'&
1
/he ;nformation for murder in Crimina! Case )o& 21$=60* thus reads5
/hat on or about the 1+th da1 of ,u!1, 1221, in the 0unicipa!it1 of 0aBati, 0etro
0ani!a, >hi!ippines and within the Durisdiction of this (onorab!e Court, the said
C!audio /eehanBee, ,r& 1 ,avier, armed with a hand.un, with intent to Bi!! and
evident premeditation and b1 means of treacher1, did then and there wi!fu!!1,
un!awfu!!1 and fe!onious!1 attacB, assau!t and shoot with and shoot with the said
hand.un 'o!and ,ohn Chapman who war hit in the chest, thereb1 inf!ictin. morta!
wounds which direct!1 caused the death of said 'o!and ,ohn Chapman&
Contrar1 to !aw&
2
/he mended ;nformation for 0urder in Crimina! Case )o& 21$=606 reads5
/hat on or about the 1+th da1 of ,u!1, 1221, in the 0unicipa!it1 of 0aBati, 0etro
0ani!a, >hi!ippines and within the Durisdiction of this (onorab!e Court, t!e said
Claudio Tee!ankee& :r. y :avier, armed with a hand.un, with intent to Bi!! and
evident premeditation, and b1 means of treacher1, did then and there wi!fu!!1,
un!awfu!!1 and fe!onious!1 attacB, assau!t and shoot wit! t!e said !andgun
0aureen )avarro (u!tman w!o was !it in t!e !ead& t!ereby inlicting moral
wounds w!ic! directly caused t!e deat! o t!e said 8aureen =ultman&
C9)/''< /9 46&
G
8ina!!1, the ;nformation for 8rustrated 0urder in Crimina! Case )o& 21$=60- reads5
/hat on or about the 1+th da1 of ,u!1, 1221, in the 0unicipa!it1 of 0aBati, 0etro
0ani!a, >hi!ippines and within the Durisdiction of this (onorab!e Court, the
above$named accused, whi!e armed with a hand.un, with intent to Bi!!, treacher1
and evident premeditation did then and there wi!fu!!1, un!awfu!!1 and fe!onious!1
attacB, assau!t and shoot one ,ussi 9!avi 4eino on the head, thereb1 inf!ictin.
.unshot wounds, which ordinari!1 wou!d have caused the death of said ,ussi
9!avi 4eino, thereb1 performin. a!! the acts of eAecution which wou!d have
produced the crime of murder as a conse?uence, but neverthe!ess did not produce
it b1 reason of cause or causes independent of his wi!!, that is, due to the time!1
and ab!e medica! assistance rendered to said ,ussi 9!avi 4eino which prevented
his death&
Contrar1 to !aw&
H
;n the two "2# ;nformations for frustrated murder initia!!1 fi!ed a.ainst accused, bai! was set at
twent1 thousand pesos ">20,000&00# each& )o bai! was recommended for the murder of 'o!and
,ohn Chapman& petition for bai! was thus fi!ed b1 accused& (earin. was set on u.ust 2, 1221,
whi!e his arrai.nment was schedu!ed on u.ust 1=, 1221&
t the hearin. of the petition for bai! on u.ust 2, 1221, the prosecution manifested that it wou!d
present the survivin. victim, ,ussi 4eino, to testif1 on the Bi!!in. of Chapman and on the
circumstances resu!tin. to the woundin. of the witness himse!f and (u!tman& Defense counse!
tt1& 'odo!fo ,imeneF obDected on the .round that the incident pendin. that da1 was hearin. of
the evidence on the petition for bai! re!ative to the murder char.e for the Bi!!in. of Chapman
on!1& (e opined that 4eino3s testimon1 on the frustrated murder char.es with respect to the
woundin. of 4eino and (u!tman wou!d be irre!evant&
5
>rivate prosecutor, tt1& 'o.e!io Ein!uan, countered that time wou!d be wasted if the testimon1
of 4eino wou!d be !imited to the Bi!!in. of Chapman considerin. that the crimes for which
accused were char.ed invo!ved on!1 one continuin. incident& (e p!eaded that 4eino shou!d be
a!!owed to testif1 on a!! three "+# char.es to obviate de!a1 and the inconvenience of reca!!in. him
!ater to prove the two "2# frustrated murder char.es&
6
B1 wa1 of accommodation, the defense su..ested that if the prosecution wanted to present 4eino
to testif1 on a!! three "+# char.es, it shou!d wait unti! after the arrai.nment of accused on u.ust
1=, 1221& /he defense pointed out that if accused did not fi!e a petition for bai!, the prosecution
wou!d sti!! have to wait unti! after accused had been arrai.ned before it cou!d present 4eino&
7
/he private prosecutor a.reed to defer the hearin. on the petition for bai! unti! after arrai.nment
of accused on the condition that there sha!! be tria! on the merits and, at the same time, hearin.
on the petition for bai!& /he defense counse! acceded&
8
:pon arrai.nment, accused p!eaded not .ui!t1 to the three "+# char.es& /he prosecution then
started to adduce evidence re!ative to a!! three "+# cases& )o obDection was made b1 the defense&
9
rep!a1 of the facts wi!! show that on ,u!1 12, 1221, ,ussi 9!avi 4eino invited 'o!and Chapman,
0aureen (u!tman and other friends for a part1 at his house in 8orbes >arB, 0aBati& /he part1
started at about 85+0 p&m& and ended at past midni.ht& /he1 then proceeded to 'oA13s, a pub
where students of ;nternationa! Schoo! han. out&
10
fter an hour, the1 transferred to Einta.e,
another pub in 0aBati, where the1 sta1ed unti! past +500 a&m& of ,u!1 1+, 1221& /heir .roup
returned to 'oA13s to picB up a friend of 0aureen, then went bacB to 4eino3s house to eat&
11
fter a whi!e, 0aureen re?uested 4eino to taBe her home at Campani!!a Street, DasmariKas
Ei!!a.e, 0aBati& Chapman ta..ed a!on.&
12
6hen the1 entered the vi!!a.e, 0aureen asBed 4eino
to stop a!on. 0aho.an1 Street, about a b!ocB awa1 from her house in Campani!!a Street& She
wanted to wa!B the rest of the wa1 for she did not !iBe to create too much noise in .oin. bacB to
her house& She did not want her parents to Bnow that she was .oin. home that !ate& 4eino offered
to wa!B with her whi!e Chapman sta1ed in the car and !istened to the radio&
1G
4eino and 0aureen started wa!Bin. on the sidewa!B a!on. 0aho.an1 Street& 6hen the1 reached
the corner of Caba!!ero and 0aho.an1 Streets, a !i.ht$co!ored 0itsubishi boA$t1pe 4ancer car,
driven b1 accused C!audio /eehanBee, ,r&, came up from behind them and stopped on the midd!e
of the road& ccused a!i.hted from his car, approached them, and asBed5 C6ho are 1ouH "Show
me 1our# ;&D&C 4eino thou.ht accused on!1 wanted to checB their identities& (e reached into his
pocBet, tooB out his p!astic wa!!et, and handed to accused his sian Deve!opment BanB "DB#
;&D&
1H
ccused did not bother to !ooB at his ;&D& as he Dust .rabbed 4eino3s wa!!et and pocBeted
it&
15
Chapman saw the incident& !! of a sudden, he manifested from behind 4eino and in?uired what
was .oin. on& (e stepped down on the sidewa!B and asBed accused5 C6h1 are 1ou botherin.
usHC ccused pushed Chapman, du. into his shirt, pu!!ed out a .un and fired at him& Chapman
fe!t his upper bod1, sta..ered for a moment, and asBed5 C6h1 did 1ou shoot meHC Chapman
crump!ed on the sidewa!B& 4eino Bne!t beside Chapman to assist him but accused ordered him to
.et up and !eave Chapman a!one&
16
ccused then turned his ire on 4eino& (e pointed .un at him and asBed5 CDo 1ou want a
troub!eHC 4eino said CnoC and tooB a step bacBward& /he shootin. initia!!1 shocBed 0aureen&
6hen she came to her senses, she became h1sterica! and started screamin. for he!p& She
repeated!1 shouted5 C9h, m1 %od, he3s .ot a .un& (e3s .onna Bi!! us& 6i!! somebod1 he!p usHC
!! the whi!e, accused was pointin. his .un to and from 4eino to 0aureen, warnin. the !atter to
shut up& ccused ordered 4eino to sit down on the sidewa!B& 4eino obe1ed and made no attempt
to move awa1& ccused stood 2$+ meters awa1 from him& (e Bnew he cou!d not run far without
bein. shot b1 accused&
0aureen continued to be h1sterica!& She cou!d not sta1 sti!!& She stra1ed to the side of accused3s
car& ccused tried but fai!ed to .rab her& 0aureen circ!ed around accused3s car, tr1in. to put some
distance between them& /he short chase !asted for a minute or two& 7ventua!!1, accused cau.ht
0aureen and repeated!1 enDoined her to shut up and sit down beside 4eino&
17
0aureen fina!!1 sat beside 4eino on the sidewa!B& /wo "2# meters awa1 and direct!1 in front of
them stood accused&
18
8or a moment, accused turned his bacB from the two& (e faced them a.ain
and shot 4eino& 4eino was hit on the upper Daw, fe!! bacBwards on the sidewa!B, but did not !ose
consciousness& 4eino heard another shot and saw 0aureen fa!! beside him& (e !ifted his head to
see what was happenin. and saw accused return to his car and drive awa1&
19
4eino stru..!ed to his Bnees and shouted for he!p& (e noticed at !east three "+# peop!e !ooBin. on
and standin. outside their houses a!on. Caba!!ero Street&
20
/he three were5 D90;)%9
849'7C7, a private securit1 .uard hired b1 Stephen 'oAas to secure his residence at L1+*-
Caba!!ero Street, DasmariKas Ei!!a.e, 0aBati@
21
E;C7)/7 0)%:B/, a sta1$in driver of
0ar.arita Canto, residin. at L1+*2 Caba!!ero Street, corner 0aho.an1 Street, DasmariKas
Ei!!a.e@
22
and %';>;)9 CD7)S, a private securit1 .uard assi.ned at the house of 'e1
Dempse1, !ocated at L1+*1 Caba!!ero Street, corner 0aho.an1 Street, DasmariKas Ei!!a.e&
2G
Securit1 .uards 8!orece and Cadenas were then on dut1 at the house of their emp!o1er, whi!e
driver 0an.ubat was in his ?uarters, preparin. to return to his own house& /hese three "+#
e1ewitnesses heard the first .unshot whi!e at their respective posts&
:pon hearin. the first shot, 8!orece went out to Caba!!ero Street to see what was happenin.,
whi!e 0an.ubat and Cadenas peeped over the fence of their emp!o1er3s house and !ooBed out to
Caba!!ero Street& 7ach saw a man "Chapman# spraw!ed on the .round, another man "4eino#
sittin. on the sidewa!B, a third man standin. up ad ho!din. a .un and a woman "(u!tman#& /he1
saw the .unman shoot 4eino and (u!tman and f!ee aboard his 4ancer car& (owever, because of
8!orece3s distance from the scene of the crime,
2H
he was not ab!e to discern the face of the
.unman& (e saw the contro! numbers of the .unman3s car as *66& (e described the .atewa1 car
as a boA$t1pe 4ancer, its co!or somewhat white "Cmed1o maputiC#&
25
Cadenas noticed in fu!! the
p!ate number of the .etawa1 car and .ave it as >D6 *66& (e described the car as si!ver meta!!ic
.ra1&
26
Both Cadenas and 0an.ubat saw the .unman3s face& /he1 had a .ood !ooB at him&
Cadenas was then a mere four "=# meters awa1 from the .unman3s car,
27
whi!e 0an.ubat was
about twent1 "20# meters awa1 from the scene of the crime&
28
/he three confirmed that the
corner of Caba!!ero and 0aho.an1 Streets where the shootin. tooB p!ace was ade?uate!1
i!!uminated b1 a 0era!co !amppost at the time of the incident&
29
fter the .unman sped awa1, 0an.ubat ran outside his emp!o1er3s house and went near the
scene of the crime& (e noticed securit1 .uard 8!orece a!on. Caba!!ero Street& man on a biBe
passed b1 and 0an.ubat re?uested him to report the shootin. incident to the securit1 officers of
DasmariKas Ei!!a.e&
G0
0eanwhi!e, 8!orece returned to his post and narrated to his emp!o1er,
0rs& (e!en 'oAas, what he saw& 0rs& 'oAas repaired to the crime scene whi!e 8!orece noted the
incident in his !o.booB "7Ahibit CBC#& (e a!so Dotted down the !icense p!ate contro! number of the
.unman3s car as *66&
G1
/he securit1 .uards of DasmariKas Ei!!a.e came after a few minutes& /he1 rushed 4eino and
0aureen to the 0aBati 0edica! Center for treatment&
G2
/he 0aBati po!ice and a.ents of the )B; a!so came& >atro!man ,07S B4DD9 of the
0aBati po!ice, to.ether with S>9+ 4B7'/9 87'))D7M, investi.ated the incident&
GG
/heir
initia! investi.ation disc!osed that the .unman3s car was a boA$t1pe 0itsubishi 4ancer with p!ate
contro! number *66& /he1 checBed the !ist of vehic!es re.istered with the vi!!a.e (omeowners3
ssociation and were ab!e to tracB down two "2# 4ancer cars bearin. p!ate contro! number *66&
9ne was re.istered in the name of ,9S7 09)/N9 of 182+ Santan Street, DasmariKas Ei!!a.e,
with p!ate number >IO *66, and another was traced to accused C4:D;9 /77()I77, ,'&,
of 1++2 Caba!!ero Street, DasmariKas Ei!!a.e, with p!ate number >D6 *66&
S4ED9' ');), Chief of the Specia! 9perations %roup "S9%# of the )B;, was a!so tasBed
b1 then )B; Director !fredo 4im
GH
to head a team to investi.ate the shootin.& 'anin3s team
immediate!1 proceeded to the house of ,ose 0ontaKo
G5
where the1 found ahead of them the
0aBati po!ice and operatives of the Constabu!ar1 (i.hwa1 >atro!& 'anin tried to verif1 from
0rs& 0ontaKo whether the white 4ancer car re.istered in the name of 0r& 0ontaKo and bearin.
p!ate number *66 was the .unman3s car& 0rs& 0ontaKo denied and dec!ared the1 had a!read1 so!d
the car to Sa!daKa 7nterprises& She averred the car was bein. used b1 one Ben Conti, a
comptro!!er in said compan1, who resides in Cubao, GueFon Cit1& 0rs& 0ontaKo ca!!ed up her
husband and informed him about the investi.ation& She a!so ca!!ed up Conti and asBed him to
brin. the car to the house&
G6
,ose 0ontaKo came around noon& Conti fo!!owed with white 4ancer car& 'anin brou.ht them to
the )B; office for investi.ation, to.ether with 4ancer car& t the )B; 'anin in?uired from
0ontaKo the whereabouts of his car on ,u!1 12 and 1+, 1221& 0ontaKo informed him that the car
was at the residence of his emp!o1ee, Ben Conti, at 7& 'odri.ueF Street, Cubao, GueFon Cit1, the
ni.ht of ,u!1 12, 1221& ;n the mornin. of ,u!1 1+, 1221, Conti drove the car to their office at
Sa!daKa 7nterprises& Conti confirmed this information& 'anin received the same confirmation
from two "2# )B; a.ents who made a counterchecB of the a!!e.ation& :pon 'anin3s re?uest,
0ontaKo !eft his car at the )B; parBin. !ot pendin. identification b1 possib!e witnesses&
G7
9n ,u!1 1=, 1221, a team of )B; a.ents conducted an on$the$spot investi.ation and
nei.hborhood in?uir1 of the shootin. incident& /he1 interviewed Domin.o 8!orece and asBed
him to report to their office the neAt da1 for further investi.ation&
G8
/he1 a!so interviewed
.ripino Cadenas who was re!uctant to divu!.e an1 information and even denied havin.
witnessed the incident& Sensin. his re!uctance, the1 returned to Cadenas3 post at DasmariKas
Ei!!a.e that ni.ht and served him a subpoena, invitin. him to appear at the )B; office for
investi.ation the neAt da1&
G9
/he )B; a.ents a!so ta!Bed with rmenia s!iami, an 7.1ptian
nationa! residin. at L1+*0 Caba!!ero Street, DasmariKas Ei!!a.e, near the scene of the crime&
s!iami informed the a.ents that the .unman3s car was not white but !i.ht .ra1& forei.n
nationa!, s!iami was afraid and refused to .ive a statement about the incident& /he a.ents
eAerted ever1 effort to convince s!iami to cooperate, assurin. her of their protection& 'anin
even asBed a representative of the 7.1ptian embass1 to coaA s!iami to cooperate& /he1 fai!ed&
H0
9n ,u!1 1*, 1221, 8!orece and Cadenas appeared at the )B; office as summoned& 8!orece readi!1
eAecuted a sworn statement&
H1
Cadenas, however, continued to fei.n i.norance and brid!ed his
Bnow!ed.e of the incident& (e was !en.thi!1 interviewed& t around 2500 p&m&, the )B; a.ents
informed S9% Chief 'anin that Cadenas was sti!! withho!din. information from them& 'anin
ta!Bed to Cadenas in his office& Cadenas confided to 'anin his fear to .et invo!ved in the case&
(e was apprehensive that the .unman wou!d harass or harm him or his fami!1& fter 'anin
assured him of )B; protection, Cadenas re!ented&
H2
/he neAt da1, ,u!1 16, 1221, Cadenas .ave a fu!! disc!osure to 'anin& (e described the .unman3s
car as a boA$t1pe 4ancer with p!ate number >D6 *66& (e was brou.ht to the )B; parBin. !ot
where 0ontaKo3s white 4ancer car was parBed to identif1 the .unman3s car& 'anin asBed Cadenas
if 0ontaKo3s was the .unman3s car& Cadenas rep!ied that its co!or was different& 'anin directed
him to !ooB around the cars in the parBin. !ot and to point the co!or that most resemb!ed the co!or
of the .unman3s car& (e pointed to a !i.ht .ra1 car& 'anin to!d him that the co!or of the car he
pointed to was not white but !i.ht .ra1&
HG
'anin then asBed Cadenas if he cou!d identif1 the .unman& Cadenas rep!ied in the affirmative&
'anin !ed Cadenas to his office and showed him ten "10# pictures of different men "7Ahibits
CCC$1C to CCC$10# taBen from the )B; fi!es& 9ne of the pictures be!on.ed to accused C!audio
/eehanBee, ,r& Cadenas studied the pictures, picBed accused3s picture "7Ahibit CCC$-C#, and
identified him as the .unman& Cadenas wrote his name and the date at the bacB of said picture&
tt1& !eA /enerife of the )B; then tooB down Cadenas3 statement&
HH
'anin sent his a.ents and the witnesses to the 0aBati 'e.iona! /ria! Court to app!1 for a search
warrant& fter a searchin. eAamination of the witnesses, ,ud.e 'ebecca Sa!vador issued a search
warrant "7Ahibit C''C#, authoriFin. the )B; to search and seiFe the si!ver meta!!ic .ra1, 128+
0itsubishi 4ancer car owned b1 accused, bearin. p!ate number >D6 *66& 'anin and his a.ents
drove to accused3s house at L1++2 Caba!!ero Street, DasmariKas Ei!!a.e, to imp!ement the
warrant&
H5
t accused3s house, 'anin informed 0rs& >i!ar /eehanBee, mother of accused, of their search
warrant& 'anin a!so to!d 0rs& /eehanBee that the1 had orders from Director 4im to invite
accused to the )B; office for investi.ation& 0rs& /eehanBee informed them that accused was not
in the house at that time& She eAcused herse!f, went to the Bitchen and ca!!ed up someone on the
phone&
H6
;n the meantime, 'anin and his men s!ipped to the /eehanBee .ara.e and secured accused3s car&
fter a whi!e, 0rs& /eehanBee Doined them& 'anin asBed her for the car Be1s but she to!d him that
the Be1s were with accused& :pon 'anin3s re?uest, 0rs& /eehanBee .ot in touch with accused on
the phone& 'anin conversed with accused and invited him to the )B; for investi.ation& ccused
assured 'anin that he wou!d report to the )B; !ater that da1& /he a.ents then towed the car of
accused to the )B; office&
H7
t around 2500 p&m&, accused3s brother, 'au! /eehanBee, arrived at the )B; office and waited for
accused& ccused came, escorted b1 three "+# 0aBati po!icemen, after an hour& (e informed
them that he Dust came from the 0aBati po!ice station where he was a!so investi.ated& (e to!d
4im that he was .iven a statement to the 0aBati po!ice and was brou.ht to the >C Crime
4aborator1 for paraffin test&
H8
ccused3s )B; investi.ation started& 4im asBed accused of the whereabouts of his 4ancer car at
the time of the shootin.& ccused c!aimed that his car was invo!ved in an accident a few weeBs
bacB and was no !on.er functionin.& /he car had been parBed in his mother3s house at
DasmariKas Ei!!a.e since then& Due to the !ateness of the evenin., the .roup decided to continue
the investi.ation the fo!!owin. da1&
H9
/he neAt da1, ,u!1 1-, 1221, after breaBfast at the 0ani!a (ote!, 4im pressed accused on what
rea!!1 happened at DasmariKas Ei!!a.e& ccused said he did not see an1thin.& 4im apprised
accused that he wou!d be confronted with some e1ewitnesses& ccused sanB into si!ence&
50
4im directed 'anin to prepare a !ineup at his office& ccused was re?uested to Doin the !ineup
composed of seven "-# men and he acceded& Cadenas was ca!!ed from an adDoinin. room
51
and
'anin asBed him to identif1 the .unman from the !ineup& 8orthwith, Cadenas pointed to accused&
52
ccused mere!1 stared at Cadenas&
5G
9n the same da1, then sst& Director 7pimaco Ee!asco, 'anin and two "2# other a.ents brou.ht
accused to 8orbes >arB for further identification b1 the survivin. victim, ,ussi 4eino& 4eino has
Dust been dischar.ed from the hospita! the da1 before& Since 4eino3s parents were worried about
his safet1, the1 re?uested the )B; to conduct the identification of the .unman in 8orbes >arB
where the 4einos a!so reside& /he )B; a.reed&
5H
(ouse securit1 a.ents from the :&S& embass1 fetched 4eino at his house and escorted him and
his father to a vacant house in 8orbes >arB, a!on. )arra venue& fter a coup!e of minutes, 4eino
was brou.ht out of the house and p!aced in a car with s!i.ht!1 tinted windows& /he car was
parBed about five "*# meters awa1 from the house& ;nside the car with 4eino was his father, )B;$
S9% Chief Sa!vador 'anin and a driver& 4eino was instructed to !ooB at the men who wou!d be
comin. out of the house and identif1 the .unman from the !ineup&
55
.roup of five to siA men "inc!udin. accused# then came out of the unoccupied house, into the
street, in a !ine$up& 4eino noticed that one of them was wearin. sun.!asses& Since 4eino cou!d
not 1et speaB at that time due to the eAtensive inDur1 on his ton.ue, he wrote down on a piece of
paper a re?uest for one of the men in the !ineup to remove his sun.!asses& 4eino handed this
written re?uest to his father& /he men in the !ineup were herded bacB inside the house& fter a
coup!e of minutes, the1 a.ain stepped out and none was wearin. sun.!asses& 8rom the !ineup,
4eino identified accused as the .unman&
56
/he a.ents brou.ht bacB accused to the )B;& /he1 prepared and referred the cases of murder and
doub!e frustrated murder a.ainst accused to the Department of ,ustice for appropriate action& t
the in?uest, 8isca! Dennis Ei!!a$;.nacio did not recommend bai! insofar as the murder char.e
was concerned& (ence, accused was detained at the )B;&
57
/he shootin. incident was a!so investi.ated b1 the 0aBati >o!ice& >at& Ba!dado went to see
securit1 .uard Eicente 0an.ubat at his post, at the residence of his emp!o1er in DasmariKas
Ei!!a.e& Ba!dado interviewed 0an.ubat and invited him to the 0aBati po!ice station where his
statement "7Ahibit CDC# was taBen&
58
/he neAt da1, ,u!1 16, 1221, at about 85+0 a&m&, >at& Ba!dado fetched 0an.ubat from his house
and brou.ht him to the 0aBati po!ice station& t the station, Ba!dado to!d him to wait for a man
who wou!d be comin. and see if the person was the .unman& 0an.ubat was posted at the top of
the stairs at the second f!oor of the station&
59
fter a coup!e of hours, accused, came with 0aBati po!ice 0aDor 4ovete& (e ascended the stairs,
passed b1 0an.ubat and proceeded to 0aDor 4ovete3s office at the second f!oor& 6hi!e accused
was .oin. up the stairs, >at& Ba!dado in?uired from 0an.ubat if accused was the .unman&
0an.ubat initia!!1 dec!ined to identif1 accused, sa1in. that he wanted to see the man a.ain to be
sure& (e a!so confided to >at& Ba!dado that he was nervous and afraid for accused was
accompanied b1 a po!ice 0aDor& 6hen accused came out from 0aDor 4ovete3s office, >at&
Ba!dado a.ain asBed 0an.ubat if accused was the .unman& 0an.ubat nodded his head in
response&
60
ccused, to.ether with 0aDor 4ovete and >at& Ba!dado, boarded a 0ercedes BenF
and !eft& 0an.ubat was brou.ht bacB to his post at DasmariKas Ei!!a.e b1 other 0aBati
po!icemen&
61
/wo "2# da1s !ater, >at& Ba!dado visited 0an.ubat at his emp!o1er3s house and asBed him a.ain if
accused was rea!!1 the .unman& 9nce more, 0an.ubat answered in the affirmative& >at& Ba!dado
to!d 0an.ubat that he wou!d no !on.er asB him to si.n a statement which he "Ba!dado# ear!ier
prepared "7Ahibit C(((C#&
62
Ba!dado then !eft&
6G
;n the afternoon of ,u!1 2+, 1221, 0an.ubat was a!so ?uestioned b1 the )B; a.ents& Director
4im asBed 0an.ubat if he cou!d reco.niFe the .unman& 0an.ubat said he cou!d& 0an.ubat was
shown twe!ve "12# pictures "7Ahibits C7C to C7$11# of different men and was asBed to identif1 the
.un .unman from them& (e chose one picture "7Ahibit C7$10C#, that of accused, and identified
him as the .unman& 0an.ubat3s statement was taBen& (e was asBed to return to the )B; the neAt
da1 to maBe a persona! identification&
6H
6hen 0an.ubat returned, a !ineup was prepared in 4im3s office in the presence of the media& t
that time, accused3s counse!s, tt1s& ,imeneF and 0a!var, were at the office of then sst& Director
7pimaco Ee!asco protestin. to the submission of accused to identification& /he1 pointed out that
since the cases a.ainst accused had a!read1 been fi!ed in court and the1 have secured a court
order for the transfer of accused to the 0aBati municipa! Dai!, an1 identification of accused
shou!d be made in the courtroom& sst& Director Ee!asco insisted on the identification as it was
part of their on$.oin. investi.ation& 7ventua!!1, accused3s counse!s ac?uiesced but re?uested that
identification be made without the presence of the media& Ee!asco turned them down and
eAp!ained that if accused is not identified n the !ineup, the media covera.e wou!d favor accused&
65
!! that time, accused was at the S9% office& (e refused to Doin the !ineup at 4im3s office and
remained seated& 'anin was compe!!ed to brin. to the S9% office the men composin. the !ineup
and he asBed them to .o near accused& 'anin then to!d 0an.ubat to .o in the office& 0an.ubat
pointed to accused as the .unman&
6ith the identification of accused b1 0an.ubat, the )B; wrote inis to its investi.ation&
66
,:SS; 47;)9, the survivin. victim, suffered the fo!!owin. inDuries5
8;)D;)%S5
P brasion, 0&* cm&, tempora! area, !eft&
P 6ound, .unshot, entrance, circu!ar in shape, 1&0 cm& in diameter,
!ocated at the upper !ip, mouth, a!on. the media! !ine, directed
bacBwards and downwards, fracturin. the maAi!!ar1 bone and
centra! and !atera! incisors, both sides, to the bucca! cavit1 then
!aceratin. the ton.ue with fra.ments of the bu!!et !od.ed in the
ri.ht pa!atine, ton.ue and tonsi!!ar re.ion&
SI:44
C(7S/ 89' ';BS O$'< L+*++22
,u!1 1+, 1221
)o demonstrab!e evidence of fracture& )ote of radioopa?ue forei.n
bod1 "bu!!et fra.ments# a!on. the superior a!veo!ar border on the
ri.ht& )o remarBab!e findin.s&
C/ SC) L=+222 ,u!1 1+, 1221
Sma!! h1perdensities presumab!1 bu!!et and bone fra.ments in the
ri.ht pa!atine, ton.ue and tonsi!!ar re.ions with associated soft
tissue swe!!in.&
nterior maAi!!ar1 bone comminuted fracture&
/empora! !obe contusions with sma!! hematomata on the ri.ht side&
0inima! subarachnoid hemorrha.e&
;ntact bone ca!varium&
AAA AAA AAA
67
Dr& >edro So!is, testified that the bu!!et entered the !eft temp!e of 4eino& fter enterin. 4eino3s
head, it fractured his upper Daw and his front teeth& Some of the bu!!et fra.ments pierced his
pa!ette and ton.ue& Brain scannin. revea!ed contusions on the tempora! !obe and hemorrha.e on
the coverin. of the brain& >h1sica! deformit1 resu!ted as a conse?uence of the .unshot wound
because of the fractured upper Daw and the !oss of the front teeth& Sutures were performed on the
upper portion of his ton.ue& )onethe!ess, 4eino3s inDuries on the ton.ue caused him difficu!t1 in
speaBin.&
68
Dr& So!is a!so testified as to the re!ative position of 4eino and the .unman& (e opined that the
muFF!e of the .un, !iBe in the case of 0aureen, must have been at a hi.her !eve! than the victim3s
head& (e conc!uded that the .un must have been pointed above 4eino3s head considerin. the
acuteness and downward traDector1 of the bu!!et&
69
Dr& 4eovi.i!do C& ;sabe!a, a neuro$sur.eon at the 0aBati 0edica! Center, operated on
0:'77) (:4/0)& (e testified that when he first saw 0aureen, she was unconscious and
her face was b!oodied a!! over& 0aureen had a bu!!et ho!e on the !eft side of the forehead, above
the e1ebrow& Brain tissues were ooFin. out of her nostri!s and on the !eft side of the forehead
where the bu!!et entered&
70
/he1 brou.ht 0aureen to the A$ra1 room for eAamination of her sBu!!& She was a!so .iven a C/
scan& /he eAamination revea!ed that she suffered inDuries on the sBu!! and brain& /here were
severa! sp!intered bu!!ets in her brain and the maDor portion of the bu!!et, after it fra.mented, was
!od.ed beneath her ri.ht Daw&
71
0aureen was rushed to the operatin. room for sur.er1& Dr& ;sabe!a !ed a team who operated on
her brain to arrest the b!eedin. inside her head, remove devita!iFed brain tissues and retrieve the
sp!intered bu!!ets embedded in her brain& Due to the eAtensive swe!!in. of 0aureen3s brain and
her ver1 unstab!e condition, he fai!ed to patch the destro1ed undersurface coverin. of her brain&
72
fter the sur.er1, 0aureen3s vita! si.ns continued to function but she remained unconscious&
She was whee!ed to the ;C: for further observation&
/wo "2# weeBs !ater, brain tissues and f!uid continue to f!ow out of 0aureen3s nostri!s due to the
unpatched undersurface coverin. of her brain, !eavin. the swo!!en portion of her brain eAposed&
second sur.er1 was made on ,u!1 +0, 1221 to repair 0aureen3s brain coverin.& (e used the
ascia lata of 0aureen3s ri.ht thi.h to rep!ace the destro1ed coverin. of the brain& )onethe!ess,
0aureen remained unconscious& /he tricB!e of brain tissues throu.h her nose was !essened but
0aureen deve!oped infection as a resu!t of the destruction of her brain coverin.& 0aureen
deve!oped brain abscess because of the infection& She underwent a third operation to remove
brain abscess and a!! possib!e focus of infection&
7G
/estif1in. on the eAtensive inDuries suffered b1 0aureen (u!tman, Dr& So!is eAp!ained that
0aureen was shot at the !eft side of the forehead& /he bu!!et entr1 was at 1&* cm& above the
e1ebrow& :pon enterin. the forehead, the bu!!et fra.mented into pieces and went from the !eft to
the ri.ht side of the temp!e, fracturin. the fronta! bone of the sBu!!& /he bu!!et eventua!!1 sett!ed
behind the ri.ht Daw of 0aureen&
7H
/he wound inf!icted on 0aureen was morta! for it hit one of the most vita! parts of the bod1, the
brain& 6hen 0aureen was subDected to C/ scan, the1 discovered hemorrha.e in her brain& fter
the bu!!et hit her head, it caused hemorrha.ic !esion on the ventric!es of the brain and the second
coverin. of the brain&
75
/he bu!!et a!so inDured 0aureen3s e1e socBets& /here was swe!!in. underneath the forehead
brou.ht about b1 edema in the area& Scannin. a!so showed that 0aureen3s ri.ht Daw was affected
b1 the fra.mented bu!!et& /he who!e interior portion of her nose was a!so swo!!en&
76
team of doctors operated on 0aureen3s brain& /he1 tried to contro! the interna! b!eedin. and
remove the sp!intered bu!!ets, sma!! bone fra.ments and dead tissues& /he main bu!!et was
recovered behind 0aureen3s ri.ht Daw& /here was a!so an acute downward traDector1 of the bu!!et&
(ence, it was opined that 0aureen was shot whi!e she was seated&
77
6ith each passin. da1, 0aureen3s condition deteriorated& 7ven if 0aureen survived, she wou!d
have !ed a ve.etatin. !ife and she wou!d have needed assistance in the eAecution of norma! and
ordinar1 routines&
78
She wou!d have been comp!ete!1 b!ind on the !eft e1e and there was
possibi!it1 she wou!d have a!so !ost her vision on the ri.ht e1e& !! her senses wou!d have been
modified and the same wou!d have affected her motor functions& /here was practica!!1 no
possibi!it1 for 0aureen to return to norma!&
79
0aureen did not survive her ordea!& fter ninet1$seven "2-# da1s of confinement in the hospita!,
she ceased to be a breathin. sou! on 9ctober 1-, 1221&
8or his eAcu!pation, accused re!ied on the defense of denia! and a!ibi& ccused c!aimed that on
said date and time, he was not an1where near the scene of the crime& (e a!!e.ed that he was then
in his house at L*+ San ,uan, Barrio Iapito!1o, >asi.& (e s!ept at around 1500 a&m& on ,u!1 1+,
1221 and woBe up at around 8500 or 2500 a&m& that same mornin.& ccused avowed his two "2#
maids cou!d attest to his presence in his house that fatefu! da1&
80
ccused averred that he on!1 came to Bnow the three "+# victims in the DasmariKas shootin.
when he read the newspaper reports about it& (e denied Bnowin. prosecution e1ewitnesses
.ripino Cadenas and Eicente 0an.ubat before the1 identified him as the .unman&
81
ccused admitted ownership of a boA$t1pe, si!ver meta!!ic .ra1 0itsubishi 4ancer, with p!ate
number >D6 *66& (e, however, c!aimed that said car ceased to be in .ood runnin. condition
after its invo!vement in an accident in 8ebruar1 1221& Since 0a1 1221 unti! the da1 of the
shootin., his 4ancer car had been parBed in the .ara.e of his mother3s house in DasmariKas
Ei!!a.e& (e has not used this car since then& ccused, however, conceded that a!thou.h the car
was not in .ood runnin. condition, it cou!d sti!! be used&
82
ccused said that on ,u!1 16, 1221, he went to the 0aBati po!ice station at around *500 p&m&
upon invitation of Chief of >o!ice 'em1 0acaspac and 0aDor 4ovete who wanted to asB him
about the ownership of the 4ancer car parBed in his mother3s house& (e readi!1 .ave a statement
to the 0aBati po!ice den1in. comp!icit1 in the crime& (e submitted himse!f to a paraffin test& (e
was accompanied b1 the 0aBati po!ice to the Crime 4aborator1 in Camp Crame and was tested
ne.ative for .unpowder nitrates&
8G
fter the test, he asBed the 0aBati po!icemen to accompan1
him to the )B; for he had ear!ier committed to his mother that he wou!d present himse!f to
Director 4im&
8H
(e arrived at Director 4im3s office at about 25+0 to 10500 p&m& (e furnished 4im with the
statement he ear!ier .ave to the 0aBati po!ice& /hereafter, 4im detained him at the )B; a.ainst
his wi!!&
85
/he fo!!owin. da1, ,u!1 1-, 1221, 4im and his a.ents brou.ht him to the 0ani!a (ote! for
breaBfast& 6hen the1 returned to the )B;, he was asBed to proceed to 4im3s office& 9n his wa1,
he saw a !ineup formed inside 4im3s office& /he )B; a.ents forced him to Doin the !ineup and
p!aced him in the number seven "-# s!ot& (e observed that the man who was to identif1 him was
a!read1 in the room& s soon as he wa!Bed up to the !ineup, Cadenas identified him as the
.unman&
86
second identification was made on the same da1 at a house in 8orbes >arB& /he )B; a.ents
brou.ht him to 8orbes >arB but he never saw ,ussi 4eino who a!!e.ed!1 identified him as the
.unman in a !ineup&
87
third identification was conducted on ,u!1 2=, 1221& (e was then seated at the office of 'anin
for he refused to Doin another !ineup& Despite his protest, the )B; a.ents insisted on the conduct
of the identification and ordered a .roup of men to !ine up a!on.side him& 6hi!e thus seated, he
was identified b1 0an.ubat as the .unman& (e comp!ained that he was not assisted b1 counse! at
an1 sta.e of said investi.ation&
88
/he defense a!so presented C4:D;9 /77()I77 ;;;, son of accused C!audio /eehanBee, ,r&
(e testified that from 0a1 1282 to 8ebruar1 1221, he had been usin. his father3s 4ancer car
bearin. p!ate number >D6 *66 in .oin. to schoo!&
89
;n 8ebruar1 1221, whi!e drivin. his father3s 4ancer car, he accidenta!!1 hit a bic1c!e driver and
two "2# trucBs parBed at the side of the road& /he accident resu!ted in the death of the bic1c!e
driver and dama.e to his father3s car,
90
especia!!1 on its bod1& /he timin. of the en.ine became a
!itt!e off and the car was hard to start& /he1 had the car repaired at 'e!iab!e Shop !ocated in
Banawe Street, GueFon cit1& fter a month, he brou.ht the car to the residence of his
.randmother, >i!ar /eehanBee, at DasmariKas Ei!!a.e, 0aBati& (e persona!!1 started the car3s
en.ine and drove it to 0aBati from the shop in GueFon Cit1& (e did not brin. the car to their
house in >asi. for it was sti!! schedu!ed for further repairs and the1 preferred to have the repair
done in a shop in 0aBati& /eehanBee ;;; c!aimed that from that time on, he was prohibited b1 his
father from usin. the car because of his care!ess drivin.& (e Bept the Be1s to the car and since he
was bus1 in schoo!, no further repair on said car had been made&
91
ccused a!so imputed the commission of the crimes at bar to nders (u!tman, adoptive father of
deceased victim 0aureen (u!tman& (e capita!iFed on a newspaper report that the .unman ma1
have been an overprotective father& /his theor1 was formed when an e1ewitness a!!e.ed!1
overheard 0aureen p!eadin. to the .unman5 C(uwa. Dadd1& (uwa., Dadd1&C /he defense
presented nders (u!tman as a hosti!e witness&
)D7'S (:4/0), testified that he is a Swedish nationa!& (e and Eivian (u!tman were
married in the >hi!ippines in 1281& Eivian had two "2# chi!dren b1 her previous marria.e, one of
whom was 0aureen& (e !e.a!!1 adopted Eivian3s two "2# dau.hters in 1221& (e and Eivian had
three "+# chi!dren of their own&
92
/he defense confronted nders with one of the an.!es of the crime in the initia! sta.e of the
investi.ation, i.e., that 0aureen was overhead p!eadin. to the .unman5 C(uwa., Dadd1& (uwa.,
Dadd1&C nders eAp!ained that 0aureen cou!d not have uttered those words for 0aureen never
spoBe /a.a!o.& (e a!so said that a!! his chi!dren ca!! him C>apa,C not CDadd1&C
9G
9n ,u!1 12, 1221, he and Eivian permitted 0aureen to have a ni.ht out but instructed her to be
home b1 2500 a&m& 0aureen Dust received her first sa!ar1 in her first Dob and she wanted to
ce!ebrate with friends& t the time of the shootin., he and his wife were s!eepin. in their house&
(e woBe up at around *51* a&m& of ,u!1 1+, 1221 when a securit1 .uard came to their house and
informed them about the Bi!!in.s&
9H
nders admitted he had been voca! about the E;> treatment accorded to accused at the 0aBati
municipa! Dai!& 9n severa! occasions, he checBed on accused in Dai! and discovered that accused
was not in his ce!!& /he Dai! .uards even covered up accused3s whereabouts& (is comp!aint was
investi.ated b1 the Con.ressiona! Committee on Crime >revention, headed b1 Con.ressman
Concepcion&
95
/he defense a!so presented two "2# 0aBati po!icemen, >/& ,07S 8& B4DD9 and S>9+
4B7'/9 87'))D7M, who investi.ated the shootin.&
>at& Ba!dado testified that in the course of his investi.ation, he !earned from 0r& ,ose 0ontaKo
that he so!d his white 4ancer car, with p!ate number >IO *66, to Sa!daKa 4endin. ;nvestors in
8ebruar1 1221& /his car was assi.ned to Ben Conti, 9perations 0ana.er of said compan1 and
was in the residence of Conti at the time of the shootin.& /he other witnesses he interviewed
confirmed that 0ontaKo3s white 4ancer car was not in the vicinit1 of 0ontaKo3s residence at the
time of the incident&
96
S>9+ 8ernandeF testified that he interviewed securit1 .uard Eicente 0an.ubat& 0an.ubat saw
the .unman and the .et$awa1 car but cou!d not .ive the centra! !etters of the car3s !icense p!ate&
8ernandeF went to one of the houses at the corner of 0aho.an1 and Caba!!ero Streets and asBed
the maid therein if he cou!d use the phone& fter p!acin. a ca!!, the maid to!d him that he saw the
.unman and heard one of the victims sa15 CDadd1, don3t shoot& Don3t, don3t&C 8ernandeF tried to
.et the maid3s name but the !atter refused& /he defense did not present this maid in court nor
asBed the court to subpoena her to testif1& )either was the a!!e.ed statement of the maid inc!uded
in the >ro.ress 'eport "7Ahibit C1+C# prepared b1 the 0aBati po!ice investi.ators&
97
S>9+ 8ernandeF saw 0an.ubat the neAt time on ,u!1 16, 1221 when he and Ba!dado fetched the
!atter at DasmariKas Ei!!a.e for identification of the .unman at the 0aBati po!ice station&
t the po!ice station, 8ernandeF and Ba!dado posted 0an.ubat at the !obb1& fter a few minutes,
accused and compan1 arrived& 6hen accused passed b1 them, the1 instructed 0an.ubat to !ooB
around and see if he cou!d identif1 the .unman& 0an.ubat fai!ed to identif1 accused& 0an.ubat
to!d 8ernandeF that the .unman was 1oun.er and shorter than accused&
98
S>9+ 8ernandeF a!so tooB the statement of securit1 .uard Domin.o 8!orece "7Ahibit C00C#& ;t
was si.ned b1 8!orece in his presence& ;n said statement, 8!orece described the .unman3s car as
Cmed1o putiC "somewhat white#&
99
74;MB7/( <9)9), forensic chemist of the >)> Crime 4aborator1, testified on the paraffin
test she conducted on ,u!1 1-, 1221 on both hands of accused&
100
s per Chemistr1 'eport )o& C
2-=$21,
101
the test 1ie!ded a ne.ative resu!t of .unpowder nitrates on accused3s hands& ;n said
'eport, she noted that accused was subDected to paraffin test more than sevent1$two "-2# hours
after the shootin. incident& She eAp!ained that -2 hours is the reasonab!e period within which
nitrate residues ma1 not be removed b1 ordinar1 washin. and wou!d remain on the hands of a
person who has fired a .un&
102
//<& 0):74 G& 04E', one of accused3s counse! of record, a!so tooB the stand for the
defense& (e testified that in the course of hand!in. the cases, he was ab!e to confer with
>onferrada, Cadenas3 supervisor at the Securit1 a.enc1 where Cadenas was emp!o1ed&
>onferrada informed him that Cadenas confided to him that he was tortured at the )B; and was
compe!!ed to eAecute a statement& >onferrada, a!!e.ed!1, refused to testif1& tt1& 0a!var,
however, admitted the defense did not compe! the attendance of >onferrada b1 subpoena& 9n
rebutta!, Cadenas denied the torture stor1&
tt1& 0a!var a!so admitted that he and tt1& ,imeneF were aware of the irre.u!arities committed
in the off$court identification of their c!ient& 6hen asBed what he did to remed1 this perceived
irre.u!arit1, 0a!var said he obDected to the conduct of the !ineup& 6hen further pressed whether
he fi!ed a petition for review raisin. this issue with the Department of ,ustice upon the fi!in. of
the cases therewith, he said he did not& (e offered the eAcuse that he deferred to tt1& ,imeneF,
the principa! counse! of accused at that time& (e a!so dec!ared that a!thou.h the1 Bnew that
arrai.nment wou!d mean waiver of the a!!e.ed irre.u!arities in the conduct of the investi.ation
and pre!iminar1 investi.ation, he and tt1& ,imeneF a!!owed accused to be arrai.ned&
10G
/he defense !iBewise re!ied on a number of news accounts reportin. the pro.ress in the
investi.ation of the case& ;t presented seven "-# newspaper reporters as witnesses, vi15 )estor
Barrameda of the 0ani!a /imes, 0artin 0arfi! and Dave Eeridiano of the >hi!ippine Dai!1
;n?uirer, )ida 0endoFa of 0a!a1a, ;tchie Iaba1an and !eA !!an of the >eop!e3s ,ourna! and
7!ena ben of the 0ani!a Bu!!etin& /he bu!B of defense evidence consists of newspaper c!ippin.s
and the testimonies of the news reporters, thus5
)7S/9' B''07D, a news reporter of the 0ani!a /imes identified two "2# news reports
as havin. been part!1 written b1 him& 9ne was a news item, entit!ed5 C,:S/;C7 D7>3/
9'D7'S >'9B7 98 /('77 07/'9 I;44;)%SC "7Ahibit C1C#, appearin. on the ,u!1 16,
1221 issue of the 0ani!a /imes&
10H
(e, however, c!arified that a news report is usua!!1 the
product of co!!aborative worB amon. severa! reporters& /he1 fo!!ow the practice of poo!in. news
reports where severa! reporters are tasBed to cover one subDect matter& /he news editor then
compi!es the different reports the1 fi!e and summariFes them into one stor1&
105
/he defense !ifted on!1 certain portions of 7Ahibit C1C and marBed them in evidence as fo!!ows5
7Ahibit C1$C5
Be!!o directed )B; Deput1 Director 7pimaco Ee!asco to taBe over the
investi.ation of the murders of 'o!and Chapman, 21, 7!don 0a.uan, 2*, and
three members of a fami!1 Q 7stre!!ita EiFconde and her dau.hters, Carme!a, 12,
and nne 0arie ,ennifer, -&
7Ahibit C1$BC
>o!ice said that Chapman3s assai!ant cou!d have been an.ered when (u!tman, a
10th .rader at the ;nternationa! Schoo! in 0aBati was escorted home b1 Chapman
after .oin. to a disco&
7Ahibit C1$CC
/he !one .unman, witnesses to!d po!ice, first pisto!$whipped (u!tman&
7Ahibit C!$DC
/he same witnesses said Chapman and 4eino were shot when the1 tried to escape&
7Ahibit C1$7C
9ther an.!es
Ee!asco said Cwe are pursuin. two an.!esC in the Chapman murder&
9ne, he said, is the Dea!ous1 an.!e and the other is a Chi.h!1 sensitiveC matter that
mi.ht invo!ve inf!uentia! peop!e&
106
Barrameda testified that he had no persona! Bnow!ed.e of the content of the news items marBed
as 7Ahibits C1$CC to C1$DC& (e Dust cu!!ed them from previous news reports of other newspapers&
(e admitted that the on!1 portion he wrote based on an actua! interview with )B; sst& Director
Ee!asco was 7Ahibit C;$7&C
Barrameda identified another news item in the ,u!1 2+, 1221 issue of the 0ani!a /imes, entit!ed5
C)B; ;)S;S/S ;/ (S C';%(/C S:S>7C/ ;) C(>0) S4<C which was marBed as
7Ahibit C2&C Certain portions thereof, which were not written b1 Barrameda,
107
were !ifted b1 the
defense and offered in evidence, vi15
7Ahibit C2$aC
Superintendent 4ucas 0ana.ue!od, C;S director for the nationa! capita! re.ion,
c!aims, however, that another securit1 .uard, Eic 0an.ubat, had testified before
the po!ice that another man, not /eehanBee, had fired at Chapman and his
companions&
7Ahibit C2$bC
/he C;S officia! added that the absence of nitrite or powder burns on /eehanBee3s
hands as shown b1 paraffin tests at the C;S !aborator1 indicated that he ma1 not
have fired the .un&
108
0'/;) 0'8;4, a reporter of the >hi!ippine Dai!1 ;n?uirer identified two "2# newspaper
c!ippin.s which were part!1 written b1 him&
9ne news item, which appeared on the ,u!1 1-, 1221 issue of the >hi!ippine Dai!1 ;n?uirer, was
entit!ed5 C8B; ,9;)S >'9B7 98 DS0 S4<C "7Ahibit C+C#&
109
.ain, the defense marBed in evidence certain portions of 7Ahibit C+C, thus5
7Ahibit C+$aC
6itnesses said (u!tman ta!Bed with the .unman whom she ca!!ed CDadd1C
short!1 before Chapman3s shootin.&
7Ahibit C+$bC
But 'anin said the1 were a!so !ooBin. into reports that (u!tman was a dancer
before she was adopted b1 her foster parent&
7Ahibit C+$cC
;nvesti.ations showed that the .unman sped a!on. Caba!!ero street inside the
vi!!a.e after the shootin. and was be!ieved to have proceeded toward 8orbes >arB
usin. the >a!m street .ate&
9n cross$eAamination, 0arfi! admitted that he did not write 7Ahibits C+$aC and C+$cC& (e Dust
reiterated previous reports in other newspapers& /he1 were based on specu!ations&
0arfi! a!so wrote some portions of a news item, entit!ed5 C/77()I77 S9) (74D 89'
DS0 S4<,C which appeared on the ,u!1 18, 1221 issue of the >hi!ippine Dai!1 ;n?uirer
"7Ahibit C=C#, vi15
7Ahibit C=$BC
ccordin. to )B; Director !fredo 4im, the breaB in the case came when the
witness showed up and said that the .unman was on board a si!ver$meta!!ic
4ancer&
7Ahibit C=$CC
/he witness said the .unman was standin. a few feet awa1 near the car and was
ta!Bin. to (u!tman, who was shoutin. C(uwa.R Dadd1RC severa! times&
110
0arfi!3s source of information was Director 4im& 9n cross$eAamination, 0arfi! admitted
that the news reports marBed as 7Ahibits C+C and C=C were written based on information
avai!ab!e at that time&
111
30.A 843.5>A, a reporter of the 8alaya identified a news report, entit!ed5 C/77()I77
S9) (74D 9) DS0 S4<;)%,C which appeared on the ,u!1 18, 1221 issue of 0a!a1a&
She testified that she wrote a portion thereof, marBed as 7Ahibit C*$cC, and the sources of her
information were severa! 0aBati po!icemen&
112
7Ahibit C*$cC reads5
0aBati po!icemen, meanwhi!e, disputed )B; accounts that /eehanBee was
arrested at his house&
/he1 said /eehanBee, the !ast remainin. owner of a car with p!ate contro! number
*66 who had not been ?uestioned, vo!untari!1 went to po!ice head?uarters upon
invitation of 0aBati po!ice chief Superintendent 'em1 0acaspac&
11G
/he defense presented 7O(;B;/S C1$*C to prove5 "a# the a!!e.ed concerted effort of the
investi.ators to imp!icate accused as the !one .unman@ "b# that there were other suspects aside
from accused and that someone whom 0aureen ca!!ed as CDadd1C was the actua! .unman@ "c#
that the initia! po!ice investi.ation showed that the .unman3s car was a white 4ancer with p!ate
no& *66@ and, "d# that after the )B; tooB over the investi.ation, the white 4ancer car of the
.unman became a si!ver .ra1 4ancer of accused and thereafter, he became the .unman&
;/C(;7 CB<), a reporter of the >eop!e3s ,ourna! identified the portions she wrote in the
news item, entit!ed5 33; 6;44 (9:)D <9:C, which appeared on the 9ctober 2=, 1221 issue of
>eop!e3s ,ourna! "7Ahibit C6C#& She identified the source of her information as 0r& nders
(u!tman himse!f&
11H
/he portions thereof were marBed in evidence b1 the defense, vi15
7Ahibit C6$aC
C; wi!! be visitin. him often and at the most uneApected occasion,C (u!tman said
the da1 after his 1-$1ear o!d dau.hter was cremated&
115
7Ahibit C6$bC
/he da1 0aureen died, a con.ressiona! hearin. .ranted the (u!tman fami!13s
re?uest for permission to visit /eehanBee in his ce!! Cat an1time of their choice&C
7Ahibit C6$cC
C;f on m1 neAt visit he sti!! refuses to come out and is sti!! hidin. behind the
curtain,C (u!tman said, CCon.ress to!d me that ; can taBe the curtain down and
Dai! authorities wi!! pu!! him out&C
116
47O 44), a!so a reporter of >eop!e3s ,ourna! co$wrote the news item marBed as 7Ahibit
C6C& Specifica!!1, he wrote 7Ahibits C6$dC and C6$eC
117
which read5
7Ahibit C6$dC
C?aawaawa naman ang mga =ultmans, tulungan natin sila,C 9n. was ?uoted as
te!!in. Eer.e! de Dios&
7Ahibit C6$eC
B;' insiders said 9n. has shown a Been interest in the Chapman$(u!tman,
EiFconde and 7!don 0a.uan cases because he be!on.s to a secret but ver1
inf!uentia! mu!ti$sectora! .roup monitorin. .raft and corruption and other crimes
in hi.h !eve!s of .overnment and societ1&
118
!!an was not ab!e to checB or verif1 the information in 7Ahibit C6$eC .iven to him b1 B;'
insiders for the !atter refused to be identified&
119
7Ahibit C6C and its sub$marBin.s were offered to prove5 "a# the a!!e.ed b!ind and consumin.
persona! ra.e and bias of nders (u!tman a.ainst accused@ and "b# the unwarranted pressure,
preDudice and preDud.ment b1 some con.ressiona! !eaders in favor of the (u!tmans in vio!ation
of due process&
DE7 E7';D;)9, a reporter of the >hi!ippine Dai!1 ;n?uirer, identified the news account
which appeared on the ,u!1 16, 1221 issue of the ;n?uirer, entit!ed5 CDS0 S4< S:S>7C/
;D7)/;8;7DC "7Ahibit C-C#& (e wrote a portion of said artic!e "7Ahibit C-$cC# and the source of
his information was Camp Crame&
120
;t reads5
7Ahibit C-$cC
6itnesses said the .unman f!ed aboard a white 0itsubishi 4ancer with p!ate
number C*66&C /he witnesses cannot te!! the p!ate3s contro! !etters&
121
Eeridiano !iBewise identified a news item which appeared on the ,u!1 1221 issue of the ;n?uirer,
entit!ed5 C3.B.0. <03.03-S .0SP@T4., S7C9)D 6;/)7SS /%S /77()I77C "7Ahibit
C8C#& /he portions of said news item which he wrote were marBed in evidence b1 the defense,
vi15
7Ahibit C8$aC
t the Crimina! ;nvesti.ation Service, however, an investi.ator who asBed not to
be identified insisted that the )B; .ot the wron. man& /he )B; has taBen over the
case from the C;S&
7Ahibit C8$cC
(e said the C;S wi!! short!1 identif1 the suspect Bi!!er whom he described as
Cresemb!in. /eehanBee but !ooBs much 1oun.er&C
7Ahibit C8$eC
/he source said that the po!ice3s Cprime witness,C identified on!1 as 0an.ubat,
saw ever1thin. that happened in the ear!1 mornin. of ,u!1 1+& /he witness,
however, fai!ed to identif1 /eehanBee as the .unman&
122
Eeridiano was shown another news report, entit!ed5 CC;S %;E7S :> C(>0) S4< CS7C,
which appeared on the ,u!1 26, 1221 issue of the >hi!ippine Dai!1 ;n?uirer "7Ahibit 2#&
12G
(e
wrote the entire news account,
12H
portions of which were marBed b1 the defense in evidence,
thus5
7Ahibit C2$aC
/he C;S pu!!ed out from the case a da1 after its so$ca!!ed Csurprise witnessC
picBed C!audio /eehanBee, ,r& from an )B; !ineup&
(e .athered this information from his source but he was not ab!e to interview 0an.ubat
himse!f&
125
7Ahibit C2$bC
Sira ulo pala siya "8angubat$& 0lang beses kong pinarada sa kanya si Bobby
"Tee!ankee :r&$ puro iling siya& =indi raw ito ang suspect& 3gayon bigla niyang
ituturo& said a red$faced 0aBati investi.ator who, as usua!, did not want to be
identified&
747) B7), a reporter from the 0ani!a Bu!!etin, wrote the entire artic!e, entit!ed5 C:S
D;>490/3S S9) S(9/ D7DC, which appeared on the ,u!1 1=, 1221 issue of the 0ani!a
Bu!!etin "7Ahibit C10C#&
126
/wo "2# portions thereof were marBed as evidence b1 the defense, vi15
7Ahibit C10$a$1C
/he victims were on their wa1 home in 9!ani!eino3s 0ercedeF BenF with a
dip!omat3s p!ate number when a white 4ancer with p!ate number >IO$*66
b!ocBed its path&
7Ahibit C10$a$2C
:S embass1 spoBesman Stan!e1 Schra.er said Chapman3s father is a
communications specia!ist& (e said the shootin. cou!d be the resu!t of an
a!tercation on the street&
127
8ina!!1, E;C/9' E7%, a reporter of the 0ani!a Bu!!etin, identified the news account he wrote
which appeared on the ,u!1 16, 1221 issue of the Bu!!etin, entit!ed5 C= 0:'D7' S:S>7C/S
844C "7Ahibit C22C#& >ortions of said news item were marBed b1 the defense as fo!!ows5
7Ahibit C22$bC
& & & (e was shot to death b1 a .roup of armed men at the corner of 0aho.an1 and
Caba!!ero Sts& in DasmariKas Ei!!a.e at past = a&m& 8rida1&
7Ahibit C22$cC
/he )B; sources said that Dea!ous1 sparBed the s!a1in. of Chapman who was
Bi!!ed in front of his friends on his wa1 home from a part1& /he armed men, on
board a white 4ancer car, b!ocBed the path of the victim3s 0ercedes BenF car
inside the vi!!a.e before the shootin.&
7Ahibit C22$a$1C
/he .unmen then a!i.hted from their car and at .unpoint ordered Chapman to
a!i.ht from the car& /he1 shot Chapman severa! times in the bod1, whi!e his
companions identified as 0aureen (u!tman, and ,ussi 9!ani!eino, were serious!1
wounded when the .unmen spra1ed the car with bu!!ets&
/he .unmen escaped after the shootin.& 4im said he wi!! announce !ater the
names of the detained suspects after their initia! investi.ation&
128
8ina!!1, his artic!e, entit!ed5 C0I/; S4< S:S>7C/ ;D7)/;8;7DC "7Ahibit C2+C#, which
appeared on the ,u!1 18, 1221 issue of the 8anila Bulletin, was introduced b1 the defense in
evidence as fo!!ows5
7Ahibit C2+$a$1C
/he )B; said /eehanBee was one of four men who b!ocBed Chapman3s car on
0aho.an1 St& in the subdivision&
7Ahibit C2+$a$2C
6itnesses said the1 saw /eehanBee order Chapman and his two companions,
0aureen (u!tman and ,ussi 9!ani!eino, a 8inn, to .et out of their car&
7Ahibit C2+$a$+C
/he1 identified the car used b1 the suspect, a si!ver .ra1 4ancer with p!ate )o&
>D6 *66& /he1 added that the1 saw the same car in the .ara.e of the /eehanBee
fami!1&
129
9n cross$eAamination, Ee.a dec!ared that the source of his two "a# stories was the )B; and the1
were based on information avai!ab!e to the )B; at that time
1G0
/he prosecution reca!!ed to the stand e1ewitness E;C7)/7 0)%:B/ as its rebutta! witness&
0an.ubat insisted that he was ab!e to identif1 accused when he saw the !atter at the 0aBati
po!ice station& (er reiterated that the neAt da1, >at& Ba!dado of the 0aBati po!ice went to his
p!ace of worB in DasmariKas Ei!!a.e and asBed him if he was sure about the identit1 of the
.unman& (e to!d Ba!dado he was positive& Ba!dado then said him he wou!d no !on.er re?uire
him to si.n the statement he prepared for him ear!ier&
1G1
L4535RA C. 9ALLA.5, chief of the 8orensic Chemistr1 Division of the )B;, was a!so
presented as a prosecution rebutta! witness& She testified that eAtensive washin. of hands or
eAcessive perspiration can e!iminate .unpowder nitrates !od.ed on sBin pores of the hands&
Continued washin. with hot water can induce perspiration and remove nitrate residue embedded
in the sBin pores& pp!ication of vine.ar on the hand can re.ister the same effect&
1G2
She testified that their practice at the )B; is to taBe the paraffin test on a suspect within -2 hours
from the time of the a!!e.ed firin. of a .un, durin. which time, an1 possib!e trace of nitrate ma1
sti!! be found&
1GG
She divu!.ed that ?uestions have been raised re.ardin. the re!iabi!it1 of the paraffin test& She
re!ated that she once attended a trainin. in Ba.uio Cit1 where the1 tried to test the accurac1 of a
paraffin test& ;n said trainin., two "2# )B; a.ents fired a &+8 revo!ver& 9ne of them washed his
hands& /he1 then subDected both a.ents to a paraffin test usin. diph1!amine rea.ent& Both 1ie!ded
a ne.ative resu!t& /hus, she opined, the resu!t of a paraffin test shou!d mere!1 be taBen as a
corroborative evidence and eva!uated to.ether with other ph1sica! evidence&
1GH
/he records show that the case was set for hearin. on 9ctober 22, 1222 for the presentation b1
the defense of sur$rebutta! evidence& (owever, a da1 before the schedu!ed hearin., the defense
fi!ed a Constancia
1G5
manifestin. that it sha!! waive its ri.ht to present sur$rebutta! evidence, the
same bein. unneccesar1& /he defense, however, dec!ared that this is without preDudice to the
presentation of its evidence in the tria! proper shou!d the same be necessar1&
t the hearin. of 9ctober 22, 1222, the defense counse!s did not appear& /he prosecution moved
in open court that the main cases and the petition for bai! be submitted for decision in view of the
absence of defense counse!s who had manifested that the1 wou!d no !on.er present their sur$
rebutta! evidence& /he motion was .ranted and the parties were .iven ten "10# da1s from receipt
of the 9rder within which to submit their simu!taneous 0emorandum&
1G6
;t does not appear that
the defense obDected to this 9rder& /he records show that the defense even fi!ed a motion asBin.
for additiona! time to fi!e its 0emorandum&
1G7
;n due time, both parties submitted their
respective 0emorandum&
9n December 22, 1222, the tria! court convicted accused C4:D;9 /77()I77, ,'& of the
crimes char.ed&
1G8
/he dispositive portion of the Decision reads5
6(7'789'7, premises considered, the Court hereb1 renders Dud.ment5
"1# 0n criminal Case 3o. AB%CD)E, findin. accused C!audio ,& /eehanBee, ,r&,
.ui!t1 be1ond reasonab!e doubt of the offense of 0urder, ?ua!ified b1 treacher1,
for the fata! shootin. of 'o!and ,ohn Chapman, and sentencin. said accused to
suffer imprisonment of Reclusion perpetua, and to pa1 the heirs of the said
deceased the sum of 8ift1 /housand >esos ">*0, 000&00#, >hi!ippine Currenc1,
p!us moderate or temperate and eAemp!ar1 dama.es in the sum of 8ive (undred
/housand >esos ">*00,000&00#, >hi!ippine Currenc1@
"2# 0n Criminal Case 3o. AB%CD)D, findin. accused C!audio ,& /eehanBee, ,r&,
.ui!t1 be1ond reasonab!e doubt of the offense of 0urder, ?ua!ified b1 treacher1,
for the fata! shootin. of 0aureen )avarro (u!tman, and sentencin. him to suffer
imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua, and to pa1 the heirs of the said deceased the
sum of 8ift1 /housand >esos ">*0,000&00#, >hi!ippine Currenc1, p!us the sums of
/wo 0i!!ion /hree (undred 8ift1 /housand 8our (undred SiAt1$9ne >esos and
7i.ht1$/hree Centavos ">2,+*0,=61&8+#, >hi!ippine Currenc1, as actua! dama.es@
/hirteen 0i!!ion >esos ">1+,000,000&00#, >hi!ippine Currenc1, for !oss of earnin.
capacit1 of the said deceased@ and 9ne 0i!!ion >esos ">1,000,000&00#, >hi!ippine
Currenc1, as mora!, moderate and eAemp!ar1 dama.es@
"+# 0n Criminal Case 3o. AB%CD)F, findin. accused C!audio ,& /eehanBee, ,r&,
.ui!t1 be1ond reasonab!e doubt of the offense of 8rustrated 0urder, ?ua!ified b1
treacher1, for the shootin. of ,ussi 9!avi 4eino, and sentencin. him to suffer the
indeterminate pena!t1 of ei.ht "8# 1ears of prision mayor& as minimum, to ten "10#
1ears and one "1# da1 of prision mayor, as maAimum, and to pa1 the said offended
part1 the sum of /hirt1 /housand >esos ">+0,000&00#, >hi!ippine Currenc1@ p!us
the sum of 9ne (undred 7i.hteen /housand /hree (undred SiAt1$)ine >esos
and 7i.ht1$8our Centavos ">118,+62&8=#, >hi!ippine Currenc1, and another sum
e?uiva!ent in >hi!ippine >esos of :&S& S**,600&00, both as actua! dama.es@ an
amount e?uiva!ent in >hi!ippine >esos of :&S& S=0,000&00, as !oss of earnin.
capacit1 of said offended part1@ and 9ne 0i!!ion >esos ">1,000,000&00#,
>hi!ippine Currenc1, as mora!, moderate and eAemp!ar1 dama.es&
"=# 0n all t!ese t!ree cases orderin. said accused to pa1 a!! the offended parties
the sum of /hree 0i!!ion >esos ">+,000,000&00#, >hi!ippine Currenc1, as and for
attorne13s fees and eApenses of !iti.ation@ and
"*# /o pa1 the costs in these three cases&
Conse?uent!1 the petition for bai! is hereb1 denied for utter !acB of merit&
S9 9'D7'7D&
ccused hired a new counse! in the person of tt1& )icanor B& %atma1tan, ,r& (e fi!ed a 0otion
for )ew /ria!,
1G9
a!!e.in. for the first time that the tria! court erred in considerin. as submitted
for decision not on!1 the petition for bai! but a!so the case on the merits& (e c!aimed that
accused3s ri.ht to adduce further evidence was vio!ated& (is motion for new tria! was denied&
ccused interposed the present appea!&
1H0
(e contends that5
;& /(7 4967' C9:'/ 7''7D ;) 8;)D;)% /(/ /(7 CC:S7D (D
B77) >9S;/;E74< ;D7)/;8;7D B< ,:SS; 47;)9, CD7)S )D
0)%:B/ S /(7 9)7 6(9 S(9/ (;0, '94)D C(>0) )D
0:'77) )E''9 (:4/0)&
;;& /(7 >'9S7C:/;9) (S 8;47D /9 7S/B4;S( /(7 %:;4/ 98 /(7
CC:S7D B7<9)D '7S9)B47 D9:B/&
;;;& /(7 >:B4;C;/< %;E7) /(7 CS7 %;)S/ /(7 >>744)/ 6S
0SS;E7, 9E7'6(740;)%, )D >'7,:D;C;4 S /9 7887C/;E74<
D7>';E7 /(7 CC:S7D 98 ';%(/ /9 ;0>'/;4 /';4&
;E& /(7 4967' C9:'/ 7''7D ;) 8;)D;)% /(/ /(7 I;44;)% 98
C(>0) )D (:4/0) )D /(7 S(99/;)% 98 47;)9 6S
//7)D7D B< /'7C(7'<&
E& /(7 4967' C9:'/ 7''7D ;) %')/;)% 7O9'B;/)/ 09'4
)D 7O70>4'< D0%7S )D 49SS 98 7');)% C>C;/<&
E;& /(7 4967' C9:'/ 7''7D ;) 6'D;)% //9')7<3S 877S 98
/('77 0;44;9) >7S9S ">+,000,000&00#&
E;;& /(7 4967' C9:'/ 7''7D ;) '7)D7';)% ,:D%07)/ 9) /(7
07';/S )D 9) /(7 >7/;/;9) 89' B;4 / /(7 S07 /;07
6;/(9:/ %;E;)% /(7 CC:S7D /(7 9>>9'/:);/< /9 >'7S7)/
DD;/;9)4 7E;D7)C7 ;) (;S D787)S7 9) /(7 07';/S 98 /(7
CS7 )D D7)<;)% /(7 CC:S7D3S 09/;9) 89' )76 /';4&
6e sha!! discuss these a!!e.ed errors in seriatim&
ppe!!ant was convicted on the stren.th of the testimonies of three "+# e1ewitnesses who
positive!1 identified him as the .unman& (e vi.orous!1 assai!s his out$of$court identification b1
these e1ewitnesses&
(e starts b1 tr1in. to discredit the e1eba!! account of ,ussi 4eino, the !one survivin. victim of
the crimes at bar& ppe!!ant ur.es5
8irst, that 4eino3s identification of him outside an unoccupied house in 8orbes >arB was hi.h!1
irre.u!ar&
Second, that 4eino saw his pictures on te!evision and the newspapers before he identified him&
/hird, that 4eino3s interview at the hospita! was never put in writin.&
8ourth, that the sBetch of appe!!ant based on the description .iven b1 4eino to the C;S a.ents
was suppressed b1 the )B;& ;t is surmised that the sBetch must have been amon. the evidence
turned over to the )B; when the !atter assumed Durisdiction over the investi.ation&
4ast!1, that 4eino cou!d not have remembered the face of appe!!ant& /he shootin. !asted for on!1
five "*# minutes& Durin. that period, his .aFe cou!d not have been fiAed on!1 on the .unman3s
face& (is senses were a!so du!!ed b1 the five "*# bott!es of beer he imbibed that ni.ht&
;t is understandab!e for appe!!ant to assai! his out$of$court identification b1 the prosecution
witnesses in his first assi.nment of error& 71ewitness identification constitutes vita! evidence
and, in most cases, decisive of the success or fai!ure of the prosecution& <et, whi!e e1ewitness
identification is si.nificant, it is not as accurate and authoritative as the scientific forms of
identification evidence such as the fin.erprint or D) testin.& Some authors even describe
e1ewitness evidence as Cinherent!1 suspect&C
1H1
/he causes of misidentification are Bnown, thus5
AAA AAA AAA
;dentification testimon1 has at !east three components& 8irst, witnessin. a crime,
whether as a victim or a b1stander, invo!ves perception of an event actua!!1
occurrin.& Second, the witness must memoriFe detai!s of the event& /hird, the
witness must be ab!e to reca!! and communicate accurate!1& Dan.ers of
unre!iabi!it1 in e1ewitness testimon1 arise at each of these three sta.es, for
whenever peop!e attempt to ac?uire, retain, and retrieve information accurate!1,
the1 are !imited b1 norma! human fa!!ibi!ities and su..estive inf!uences&
"7mphasis Supp!ied#
1H2
9ut$of$court identification is conducted b1 the po!ice in various wa1s& ;t is done thru show$ups
where the suspect a!one is brou.ht face to face with the witness for identification& ;t is done thru
mu. shots where photo.raphs are shown to the witness to identif1 the suspect& ;t is a!so done
thru !ine$ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a .roup of persons !ined up for the
purpose& Since corruption of out$of$court identification contaminates the inte.rit1 of in$court
identification durin. the tria! of the case, courts have fashioned out ru!es to assure its fairness
and its comp!iance with the re?uirements of constitutiona! due process& ;n reso!vin. the
admissibi!it1 of and re!1in. on out$of$court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the
tota!it1 of circumstances test where the1 consider the fo!!owin. factors, vi15 "1# the witness3
opportunit1 to view the crimina! at the time of the crime@ "2# the witness3 de.ree of attention at
that time@ "+# the accurac1 of an1 prior description .iven b1 the witness@ "=# the !eve! of certaint1
demonstrated b1 the witness at the identification@ "*# the !en.th of time between the crime and
the identification@ and, "6# the su..estiveness of the identification procedure&
1HG
:sin. the tota!it1 of circumstances test, we ho!d that the a!!e.ed irre.u!arities cited b1 appe!!ant
did not resu!t in his misidentification nor was he denied due process& /here is nothin. wron. in
4eino3s identification of appe!!ant in an unoccupied house in 8orbes >arB& /he records revea! that
this mode was resorted to b1 the authorities for securit1 reasons&
1HH
/he need for securit1 even
compe!!ed that 4eino be fetched and escorted from his house in 8orbes >arB b1 :&S& embass1
securit1 officia!s and brou.ht to the house where he was to maBe the identification& /he 4einos
refused to have the identification at the )B; office as it was cramped with peop!e and with hi.h
securit1 risB&
1H5
4eino3s fear for his safet1 was not irrationa!& (e and his companions had been
shot in co!d b!ood in one of the eAc!usive, supposed!1 safe subdivisions in the metropo!is& tt1&
Sa!vador 'anin, Chief of the Specia! 9perations %roup of the )B;, correct!1 testified that there
is no hard and fast ru!e as to the p!ace where suspects are identified b1 witnesses& ;dentification
ma1 be done in open fie!d& ;t is often done in hospita!s whi!e the crime and the crimina! are sti!!
fresh in the mind of the victim&
1H6
ppe!!ant cannot a!so .ripe that 4eino saw his pictures and heard radio and /E accounts of the
shootin. before he persona!!1 identified him& ;ndeed, the records show that on ,u!1 1*, 1221,
whi!e 4eino was sti!! in the hospita!, he was shown three "+# pictures of different men b1 the
investi.ators& (e identified appe!!ant as the .unman from these pictures& (e, however,
cate.orica!!1 stated that, before the mu. shot identification, he has not seen an1 picture of
appe!!ant or read an1 report re!ative to the shootin. incident&
1H7
/he burden is on appe!!ant to
prove that his mu. shot identification was undu!1 su..estive& 8ai!in. proof of impermissib!e
su..estiveness, he cannot comp!ain about the admission of his out$of$court identification b1
4eino&
6e have no reason to doubt the correctness of appe!!ant3s identification b1 4eino& /he scene of
the crime was we!!$!i.hted b1 a 0era!co !amp post& ppe!!ant was mere!1 2$+ meters awa1 when
he shot 4eino& /he incident happened for a fu!! five "*# minutes& 4eino had no i!!$motive to
fa!se!1 testif1 a.ainst appe!!ant& (is testimon1 at the tria! was strai.htforward& (e was unshaBen
b1 the bruta! cross$eAamination of the defense counse!s& (e never wavered in his identification
of appe!!ant& 6hen asBed how sure he was that appe!!ant was responsib!e for the crime, he
confident!1 rep!ied5 C;3m ver1 sure& ;t cou!d not have been somebod1 e!se&C
1H8
ppe!!ant cannot !iBewise capita!iFe on the fai!ure of the investi.ators to reduce to a sworn
statement the information revea!ed b1 4eino durin. his hospita! interviews& ;t was sufficient!1
estab!ished that 4eino3s eAtensive inDuries, especia!!1 the inDur1 to his ton.ue, !imited his
mobi!it1& /he da1 he identified appe!!ant in the !ine$up, he was sti!! ph1sica!!1 unab!e to speaB&
(e was bein. fed throu.h a tube inserted in his throat&
1H9
/here is a!so no ru!e of evidence which
re?uires the reDection of the testimon1 of a witness whose statement has not been prior!1 reduced
to writin.& 'e!iance b1 appe!!ant on the case of People v. Alindog
150
to erode 4eino3s credibi!it1
is misp!aced& ;n !indo., accused was ac?uitted not so!e!1 on the basis of de!a1 in taBin. his
statement, but main!1 on the findin. that the prosecution evidence was, at best, circumstancia!
and Csuspicios!1 short in important detai!s,C there bein. no investi.ation whatsoever conducted
b1 the po!ice&
6e a!so reDect appe!!ant3s contention that the )B; suppressed the sBetch prepared b1 the C;S on
the basis of the description .iven b1 4eino& /here is nothin. on the record to show that said
sBetch was turned over b1 the C;S to the )B; which cou!d warrant a presumption that the sBetch
was suppressed& /he suspicion that the sBetch did not resemb!e appe!!ant is not evidence& ;t is
unmiti.ated .uessworB&
6e are not !iBewise impressed with the contention that it was incredib!e for 4eino to have
remembered appe!!ant3s face when the incident happened within a span of five "*# minutes& 8ive
"*# minutes is not a short time for 4eino to etch in his mind the picture of appe!!ant& 7Aperience
shows that precise!1 because of the unusua! acts of bestia!it1 committed before their e1es,
e1ewitnesses, especia!!1 the victims to a crime, can remember with a hi.h de.ree of re!iabi!it1
the identit1 of crimina!s&
151
6e have ru!ed that the natura! reaction of victims of crimina!
vio!ence is to strive to see the appearance of their assai!ants and observe the manner the crime
was committed& 0ost often, the face end bod1 movements of the assai!ant create an impression
which cannot be easi!1 erased from their memor1&
152
;n the case at bar, there is abso!ute!1 no
improper motive for 4eino to impute a serious crime to appe!!ant& /he victims and appe!!ant
were unBnown to each other before their chance encounter& ;f 4eino identified appe!!ant, it must
be because appe!!ant was the rea! cu!prit&
ppe!!ant a!so assai!s his identification b1 Cadenas& (e contends that Cadenas did not witness
the crime& (e stresses that when the DasmariKas securit1 force and the 0aBati po!ice conducted
an on$the$spot investi.ation on the da1 of the incident, neither came across Cadenas& /he neAt
da1, in the afternoon of ,u!1 1=, 1221, an )B; a.ent interviewed Cadenas and asBed if he saw the
incident& (e mere!1 rep!ied5 C)aBita Bo pero pata1 na&C (e did not vo!unteer information to
an1one as to what he supposed!1 witnessed& /hat same ni.ht, the )B; subpoenaed him for
investi.ation& (e went to the )B; the neAt mornin.& ;t was on!1 the neAt da1, ,u!1 16, 1221, that
he .ave his statement to the )B;& Cadenas a!!e.ed!1 to!d >onferrada, his supervisor, that the )B;
tortured him&
6e reDect appe!!ant3s submission& Cadenas3 initia! re!uctance to revea! to the authorities what he
witnessed was sufficient!1 eAp!ained durin. the tria!& (e re!ated that he feared for his and his
fami!13s safet1& (is fear was not ima.inar1& (e saw with his own e1es the sense!ess vio!ence
perpetrated b1 appe!!ant& (e Bnew appe!!ant be!on.ed to an inf!uentia! fami!1& ;t was on!1 after
consistent proddin. and assurance of protection from )B; officia!s that he a.reed to cooperate
with the authorities&
15G
/he Court has taBen Dudicia! notice of the natura! reticence of witnesses to
.et invo!ved in the so!ution of crimes considerin. the risB to their !ives and !imbs& ;n !i.ht of
these a!! too rea! risBs, the court has not considered the initia! re!uctance of fear$.ripped
witnesses to cooperate with authorities as an authorities as an indicium of credibi!it1&
15H
;t wi!!
not depart from this ru!in.&
ppe!!ant3s assertion that Cadenas was tortured b1 the )B; is not borne out b1 the records&
Supposed!1, Cadenas passed on to his superior, a certain >onferrada, information about his
torture& /he a!!e.ation is an out and out hearsa1 as >onferrada was not presented in the witness
stand& Cadenas himse!f stout!1 denied this a!!e.ation of torture& /he c!aim of torture is a!so be!ied
b1 the fact that Cadenas3 entire fami!1 was a!!owed to sta1 with him at the )B; head?uarters and
!iBewise eAtended protection&
155
ppe!!ant then discredits his identification b1 E;C7)/7 0)%:B/, citin. the testimon1 of
defense witness >at& ,ames Ba!dado of the 0aBati >o!ice& >at& Ba!dado testified that 0an.ubat
fai!ed to identif1 appe!!ant as the .unman the first time he was brou.ht to the 0aBati po!ice
station& 0an.ubat, however, be!ied Ba!dado3s stor1& (e dec!ared he positive!1 identified
appe!!ant as the .unman at the 0aBati po!ice station& (e averred that the da1 after he identified
appe!!ant, >at& Ba!dado returned to his p!ace of worB in DasmariKas and asBed him a.ain whether
appe!!ant was the .unman& .ain, he rep!ied in the affirmative& 8orthwith, >at& Ba!dado said he
wou!d no !on.er asB him to si.n a statement "7Ahibit C(((C#
156
ear!ier prepared b1 Ba!dado& ;n
said statement previous!1 prepared b1 Ba!dado, 0an.ubat was supposed to state that appe!!ant,
whom he saw at the 0aBati po!ice station, was )9/ the .unman& 6e .ive more wei.ht to the
testimon1 of 0an.ubat& 6e find nothin. in the records to suspect that 0an.ubat wou!d perDure
himse!f& /he Court cannot be as .enerous to >at& Ba!dado of the 0aBati >o!ice& 0r& (u!tman has
proved that the 0aBati po!ice, inc!udin. some of its Dai! officia!s, .ave appe!!ant favored
treatment whi!e in their custod1& /he anoma!1 tri..ered nothin. !ess than a con.ressiona!
investi.ation&
;;
6e now ru!e on appe!!ant3s second assi.nment of error, i.e., that the tria! court erred in not
ho!din. that the prosecution fai!ed to estab!ish his .ui!t be1ond reasonab!e doubt&
8irst, he c!aims the tria! court erred in citin. in its Decision his invo!vement in previous shootin.
incidents for this contravenes the ru!e
157
that evidence that one did or omitted to do a certain
thin. at one time is not admissib!e to prove that he did or omitted to do the same or simi!ar thin.
at another time& Second, the )B; fai!ed to conduct an eAamination to compare the bu!!ets fired
from the .un at the scene of the crime with the bu!!ets recovered from the bod1 of Chapman&
/hird, the prosecution e1ewitnesses described the .unman3s car as white, but the tria! court found
it to be si!ver metta!ic .ra1& 8ourth, appe!!ant cou!d not have been the .unman for 0an.ubat, in
his statement dated ,u!1 1*, 1221, said that he overheard the victim 0aureen (u!tman p!ead to
the .unman, thus5 C>!ease, don3t shoot me and don3t Bi!! me& ; promise 0omm1, Dadd1&C
ppe!!ant a!so contends that a maid in a house near the scene of the crime to!d 0aBati po!ice
!berto 8ernandeF that she heard 0aureen sa15 CDadd1 don3t shoot& Don3t&C 8ifth, the )B; towed
accused3s car from DasmariKas Ei!!a.e to the )B; office which proved that the same was not in
.ood runnin. condition& 4ast!1, the resu!t of the paraffin test conducted on appe!!ant showed he
was ne.ative of nitrates&
ppe!!ant points to other possib!e suspects, vi15& )D7'S (:4/0), since one of the
e1ewitnesses was ?uoted in the newspapers as havin. overheard 0aureen p!ead to the .unman5
C(uwa., Dadd1&C@ and, "b# ,9S7 09)/N9, another resident of DasmariKas Ei!!a.e, who had
a white 4ancer car, a!so bearin. !icense p!ate number *66&
6e reDect appe!!ant3s thesis as bereft of merit&
ppe!!ant cannot hope to eAcu!pate himse!f simp!1 because the tria! Dud.e vio!ated the ru!e on
res inter alios acta when he considered his invo!vement in previous shootin. incidents& /his
stance is a specie of a mid$1800 ru!e Bnown as the 7n.!ish 7Ache?uer 'u!e pursuant to which Ca
tria! court3s error as to the admission of evidence was presumed to have caused preDudice and
therefore, a!most automatica!!1 re?uired a new tria!&C
158
/he 7Ache?uer ru!e has !on. been !aid to
rest for even 7n.!ish appe!!ate courts now disre.ard an error in the admission of evidence
Cun!ess in its opinion, some substantia! wron. or miscarria.e "of Dustice# has been occasioned&C
159
merican courts adopted this approach especia!!1 after the enactment of a 121* federa! statute
which re?uired a federa! appe!!ate court to C.ive Dud.ment after an eAamination of the entire
record before the court, without re.ard to technica! errors, defects, or eAceptions which do not
affect the substantia! ri.hts of the parties&C
160
6e have !iBewise fo!!owed the harm!ess error ru!e
in our Durisdiction& ;n dea!in. with evidence improper!1 admitted in tria!, we eAamine its
damaging /uality and its impact to t!e substantive rig!ts o t!e litigant& ;f the impact is s!i.ht
and insi.nificant, we disre.ard the error as it wi!! not overcome the wei.ht of the proper!1
admitted evidence a.ainst the preDudiced part1&
161
;n the case at bar, the reference b1 the tria! Dud.e to reports about the troub!esome character of
appe!!ant is a harm!ess error& /he reference is not the !inchpin of the incu!pator1 evidence
appreciated b1 the tria! Dud.e in convictin. appe!!ant& s aforestated, the appe!!ant was convicted
main!1 because of his identification b1 three "+# e1ewitnesses with hi.h credibi!it1&
/he )B; ma1 have a!so fai!ed to compare the bu!!ets fired from the fata! .un with the bu!!ets
found at the scene of the crime& /he omission, however, cannot eAcu!pate appe!!ant& /he omitted
comparison cannot nu!!if1 the evidentiar1 va!ue of the positive identification of appe!!ant&
/here is a!so !itt!e to the contention of appe!!ant that his 4ancer car was not in runnin. condition&
!!e.ed!1, this was vicarious!1 proved when the )B; towed his car from DasmariKas Ei!!a.e
where it was parBed to the )B; office& .ain, the ar.ument is ne.ated b1 the records which show
that said car was towed because the )B; cou!d not .et its i.nition Be1 which was then in the
possession of appe!!ant& C!ear!1, the car was towed not because it was not in runnin. condition&
7ven appe!!ant3s evidence show that said car cou!d run& fter its repairs, appe!!ant3s son, C!audio
/eehanBee ;;;, drove it from the repair shop in Banawe, GueFon Cit1 to DasmariKas Ei!!a.e, in
0aBati, where it was
parBed&
162
)or are we impressed b1 the a!!e.ed discrepancies in the e1ewitnesses3 description of the co!or
of the .unman3s car& 4eino described the car as !i.ht$co!ored@ 8!orece said the car was somewhat
white "Cmed1o putiC#@
16G
0an.ubat dec!ared the car was white@
16H
and Cadenas testified it was
si!ver meta!!ic .ra1&
165
/hese a!!e.ed discrepancies amount to no more than shades of differences
and are not meanin.fu!, referrin. as the1 do to co!ors white, somewhat white and si!ver meta!!ic
.ra1& Considerin. the speed and shocBin. nature of the incident which happened before the breaB
of dawn, these s!i.ht discrepancies in the description of the car do not maBe the prosecution
e1ewitnesses unworth1 of credence&
ppe!!ant3s attempt to pin the crimes at bar on nders (u!tman, the adoptive father of 0aureen
(u!tman, deserves scant consideration& ppe!!ant cites a newspaper item
166
where 0aureen was
a!!e.ed!1 overheard as sa1in. to the .unman5 C=uwag& .addy. =uwag& .addy&C /he evidence on
record, however, demonstrates that nders (u!tman cou!d not have been the .unman& ;t was
c!ear!1 estab!ished that 0aureen cou!d not have uttered said statement for two "2# reasons5
0aureen did not speaB /a.a!o., and she addressed nders (u!tman as C>apa,C not CDadd1&C
167

0oreover, 4eino outri.ht!1 dismissed this suspicion& 6hi!e sti!! in the hospita! and when
informed that the 0aBati po!ice were !ooBin. into this possibi!it1, 4eino f!at!1 stated that nders
(u!tman was )9/ the .unman&
168
4eino is a re!iab!e witness&
ppe!!ant cannot a!so capita!iFe on the paraffin test showin. he was ne.ative of nitrates&
Scientific eAperts concur in the view that the paraffin test has C& & & proved eAtreme!1 unre!iab!e in
use& /he on!1 thin. that it can definite!1 estab!ish is the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites
on the hand& ;t cannot be estab!ished from this test a!one that the source of the nitrates or nitrites
was the dischar.e of a firearm& /he person ma1 have hand!ed one or more of a number of
substances which .ive the same positive reaction for nitrates or nitrites, such as eAp!osives,
fireworBs, ferti!iFers, pharmaceutica!s, and !e.uminous p!ants such as peas, beans, and a!fa!fa&
person who uses tobacco ma1 a!so have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands since these
substances are present in the products of combustion of tobacco&C
169
;n numerous ru!in.s, we
have a!so reco.niFed severa! factors which ma1 brin. about the absence of .unpowder nitrates
on the hands of a .unman, vi15 when the assai!ant washes his hands after firin. the .un, wears
.!oves at the time of the shootin., or if the direction of a stron. wind is a.ainst the .unman at the
time of firin.&
170
;n the case at bar, )B; 8orensic Chemist, 4eonora Ea!!ado, testified and
confirmed that eAcessive perspiration or washin. of hands with the use of warm water or vine.ar
ma1 a!so remove .unpowder nitrates on the sBin& She !iBewise opined that the conduct of the
paraffin test after more than sevent1$two "-2# hours from the time of the shootin. ma1 not !ead
to a re!iab!e resu!t for, b1 such time, the nitrates cou!d have a!read1 been removed b1 washin. or
perspiration&
171
;n the 'eport
172
on the paraffin test conducted on appe!!ant, 8orensic Chemist
7!iFabeth 1onon noted that when appe!!ant was tested for the presence of nitrates, more than -2
hours has a!read1 !apsed from the time of the a!!e.ed shootin.&
;;;
;n his third assi.ned error, appe!!ant b!ames the press for his conviction as he contends that the
pub!icit1 .iven to his case impaired his ri.ht to an impartia! tria!& (e postu!ates there was
pressure on the tria! Dud.e for hi.h$ranBin. .overnment officia!s avid!1 fo!!owed the
deve!opments in the case "as no !ess than Eice$>resident ,oseph 7strada and then Department of
,ustice Secretar1 8ranB!in Dri!on attended some of the hearin.s and, >resident CoraFon ?uino
even visited victim 0aureen (u!tman whi!e she was sti!! confined at the hospita!#& (e submits
that the tria! Dud.e fai!ed to protect him from preDudicia! pub!icit1 and disruptive inf!uences
which attended the prosecution of the cases& (e c!aims there were p!acards disp!a1ed durin. the
hearin. of the cases, spectators inside the courtroom c!apped their hands and converted the
proceedin.s into a carniva!& ;n another instance, he was a!!e.ed!1 .iven the Cfin.er si.nC b1
severa! 1oun. peop!e whi!e he was !eavin. the courtroom on his wa1 bacB to his ce!!&
6e cannot sustain appe!!ant3s c!aim that he was denied the ri.ht to impartia! tria! due to
preDudicia! pub!icit1& ;t is true that the print and broadcast media .ave the case at bar pervasive
pub!icit1, Dust !iBe a!! hi.h profi!e and hi.h staBe crimina! tria!s& /hen and now, we ru!e that the
ri.ht of an accused to a fair tria! is not incompatib!e to a free press& /o be sure, responsib!e
reportin. enhances an accused3s ri.ht to a fair tria! for, as we!! pointed out, Ca responsib!e press
has a!wa1s been re.arded as the handmaiden of effective Dudicia! administration, especia!!1 in
the crimina! fie!d & & & /he press does not simp!1 pub!ish information about tria!s but .uards
a.ainst the miscarria.e of Dustice b1 subDectin. in the po!ice, prosecutors, and Dudicia! processes
to eAtensive pub!ic scrutin1 and criticism&C
17G
>ervasive pub!icit1 is not per se preDudicia! to the ri.ht of an accused to fair tria!& /he mere fact
that the tria! of appe!!ant was .iven a da1$to$da1, .ave!$to$.ave! covera.e does not b1 itse!f
prove that the pub!icit1 so permeated the mind of the tria! Dud.e and impaired his impartia!it1&
8or one, it is impossib!e to sea! the minds of members of the bench from pre$tria! and other off$
court pub!icit1 of sensationa! crimina! cases& /he state of the art of our communication s1stem
brin.s news as the1 happen strai.ht to our breaBfast tab!es and ri.ht to our bedrooms& /hese
news form part of our ever1da1 menu of the facts and fictions of !ife& 8or another, our idea of a
fair and impartia! Dud.e is not that of a hermit who is out of touch with the wor!d& 6e have not
insta!!ed the Dur1 s1stem whose members are over!1 protected from pub!icit1 !est the1 !ose their
impartia!it1& Criticisms a.ainst the Dur1 s1stem are mountin. and 0arB /wain3s wit and wisdom
put them a!! in better perspective when he observed5 C6hen a .ent!eman of hi.h socia! standin.,
inte!!i.ence, and probit1 swears that testimon1 .iven under the same oath wi!! outwei.h with
him, street ta!B and newspaper reports based upon mere hearsa1, he is worth a hundred Dur1men
who wi!! swear to their own i.norance and stupidit1 & & & 6h1 cou!d not the Dur1 !aw be so a!tered
as to .ive men of brains and honest1 an e?ua! chance with foo!s and miscreantsHC
17H
9ur Dud.es
are !earned in the !aw and trained to disre.ard off$court evidence and on$camera performances of
parties to a !iti.ation& /heir mere eAposure to pub!ications and pub!icit1 stunts does not per se
fata!!1 infect their impartia!it1&
t best, appe!!ant can on!1 conDure possibi!it1 of preDudice on the part of the tria! Dud.e due to
the barra.e of pub!icit1 that characteriFed the investi.ation and tria! of the case& ;n 8artelino& et
al& v& Ale,andro& et aB&,
175
we reDected this standard of possibi!it1 of preDudice and adopted the
test of actua! preDudice as we ru!ed that to warrant a findin. of preDudicia! pub!icit1, there must
be a!!e.ation and proof that the Dud.es have been undu!1 inf!uenced, not simp!1 that the1 mi.ht
be, b1 the barra.e of pub!icit1& ;n the case at bar, the records do not show that the tria! Dud.e
deve!oped actua! bias a.ainst appe!!ant as a conse?uence of the eAtensive media covera.e of the
pre$tria! and tria! of his case& /he tota!it1 of circumstances of the case does not prove that the
tria! Dud.e ac?uired a fiAed opinion as a resu!t of preDudicia! pub!icit1 which is incapab!e of
chan.e even b1 evidence presented durin. the tria!& ppe!!ant has the burden to prove this actua!
bias and he has not dischar.ed the burden&
6e have minute!1 eAamined the transcripts of the proceedin.s and the1 do not disc!ose that the
tria! Dud.e a!!owed the proceedin.s to turn into a carniva!& )or did he consent to or condone an1
manifestation of unru!1 or improper behavior or conduct inside the courtroom durin. the tria! of
the case at bar& /he transcripts revea! the fo!!owin.5
1& t the u.ust 1=, 1221 hearin., the defense counse! ca!!ed the attention of the
court to the visib!e disp!a1 of a p!acard inside the courtroom& ctin. on the
manifestation, the tria! Dud.e immediate!1 directed that the p!acard be hidden&
9n!1 then did he order the start of the arrai.nment of accused&
176
9n the same hearin., the defense counse! asBed for the eAc!usion of the media
after the1 had enou.h opportunit1 to taBe pictures& /he court .ranted defense3s
re?uest, notin. that the courtroom was a!so too crowded&
177
2& Durin. the testimon1 of Domin.o 8!orece, an ar.ument ensued between the
defense !aw1er and the fisca!& 6hen part of the audience c!apped their hands, the
defense counse! invoBed 'u!e 112, Section 1+ of the 'u!es of Court and moved
for the eAc!usion of the pub!ic& ssistant >rosecutor Ei!!a$;.nacio obDected on the
.round that the pub!ic was not unru!1& /he tria! Dud.e noted that there were 1et no
.uide!ines drafted b1 the Supreme Court re.ardin. media covera.e of the tria!
proceedin.s&
178
Co!!aboratin. defense counse!, tt1& 0a!var, comp!ained that the
outpourin. of s1mpath1 b1 spectators inside the courtroom has turned the
proceedin.s into a carniva!& (e a!so manifested that he persona!!1 saw that when
accused was bein. brou.ht bacB to his ce!! from the courtroom, a .roup of 1oun.
peop!e were pointin. dirt1 fin.ers at accused in fu!! view of po!icemen&
8orthwith, the tria! Dud.e dec!ared that he cou!d not be dissuaded b1 pub!ic
sentiments& (e noted that the c!appin. of hands b1 the pub!ic was Dust a reaction
at the spur of the moment& (e then admonished the audience not to repeat it&
179
+& t the hearin. of ,u!1 1=, 1222, the parties a.ain ar.ued on the covera.e of the
tria! b1 the press& /he defense a!!e.ed that the media covera.e wi!! constitute
mistria! and den1 accused3s constitutiona! ri.ht to due process& ;t invoBed the
provision in the 'u!es of Court which a!!ows the accused to eAc!ude ever1bod1 in
the courtroom, eAcept the or.anic personne!& /he prosecutor, however, ar.ued that
eAc!usion of the pub!ic can be ordered on!1 in prosecution of private offenses and
does not app!1 to murder cases& (e added that the pub!ic is entit!ed to observe and
witness tria! of pub!ic offenses& (e ?uoted the :&S& case of S!eppard v. 8a+well
180
where it was he!d5 C responsib!e press is a!wa1s re.arded as the handmaiden
of effective Dudicia! administration especia!!1 in the crimina! fie!d& /he press does
not simp!1 pub!ish information about tria!s but .uards a.ainst the miscarria.e of
Dustice b1 subDectin. the po!ice, the prosecutors and Dudicia! processes to
eAtensive pub!ic scrutin1 and criticism& 6hat transpires in the courtrooms pub!ic
propert1&C /he tria! Dud.e then ru!ed that the media shou!d be .iven a chance to
cover the proceedin.s before the tria! proper but, thereafter, he prohibited them
from taBin. pictures durin. the tria!& /he1 were a!!owed to remain inside the
courtroom but were ordered to desist from taBin. !ive covera.e of the
proceedin.s&
181
=& t the u.ust 1=, 1222 hearin., before the hearin. be.an, the tria! Dud.e .ave
the media two "2# minutes to taBe video covera.e and no more& /ria! then ensued&
182
*& t the September 8, 1222 hearin., the tria! Dud.e a.ain .ave the media two "2#
minutes to taBe pictures before the tria! proper& fterwards, the reporters were
du!1 admonished to remain si!ent, to ?uiet!1 observe the proceedin.s and Dust taBe
down notes&
18G
6 9n September 10, 1222 before the start of the afternoon session, the Dud.e
admonished the media peop!e present in the courtroom to stop taBin. pictures&
18H
>arenthetica!!1, appe!!ant shou!d be the !ast person to comp!ain a.ainst the press for preDudicia!
covera.e of his tria!& /he records revea! he presented in court no !ess than seven "-# newspaper
reporters and re!ied heavi!1 on se!ected portions of their reports for his defense& /he defense3s
documentar1 evidence consists most!1 of newspaper c!ippin.s re!ative to the investi.ation of the
case at bar and which appeared to cast doubt on his .ui!t& /he press cannot be fair and unfair to
appe!!ant at the same time&
8ina!!1, it wou!d not be amiss to stress that on 0a1 22, 1222, the tria! Dud.e vo!untari!1 inhibited
himse!f from further hearin. the case at bar to assua.e appe!!ant3s suspicion of bias and partia!it1&
185
(owever, upon e!evation of the tria! Dud.e3s vo!untar1 9rder of ;nhibition to this Court, we
directed the tria! Dud.e to proceed with the tria! to speed up the administration of Dustice&
186
6e
found nothin. in the conduct of the proceedin.s to stir an1 suspicion of partia!it1 a.ainst the tria!
Dud.e&
;E
;n his fourth assi.ned error, appe!!ant c!aims that treacher1 was not present in the Bi!!in. of
(u!tman and Chapman, and the woundin. of 4eino for it was not shown that the .unman
conscious!1 and de!iberate!1 adopted particu!ar means, methods and forms in the eAecution of
the crime& ppe!!ant asserts that mere suddenness of attacB does not prove treacher1&
/he three "+# ;nformations char.ed appe!!ant with havin. committed the crimes at bar with
treacher1 and evident premeditation& 7vident premeditation was correct!1 ru!ed out b1 the tria!
court for, admitted!1, the shootin. incident was mere!1 a casua! encounter or a chance meetin.
on the street since the victims were unBnown to appe!!ant and vice$versa ;t, however, appreciated
the presence of the ?ua!if1in. circumstance of treacher1&
6e ho!d that the prosecution fai!ed to prove treacher1 in the Bi!!in. of Chapman& >rosecution
witness 4eino estab!ished the se?uence of events !eadin. to the shootin.& (e testified that for no
apparent reason, appe!!ant sudden!1 a!i.hted from his car and accosted him and 0aureen
(u!tman who were then wa!Bin. a!on. the sidewa!B& ppe!!ant ?uestioned who the1 were and
demanded for an ;&D& fter 4eino handed him his ;&D&, Chapman appeared from behind 4eino
and asBed what was .oin. on& Chapman then stepped down on the sidewa!B and in?uired from
appe!!ant what was wron.& /here and then, appe!!ant pushed Chapman, pu!!ed a .un from inside
his shirt, and shot him& /he .un attacB was uneApected& C6h1 did 1ou shoot meHC was a!!
Chapman cou!d utter&
Conceded!1, the shootin. of Chapman was carried out swift!1 and !eft him with no chance to
defend himse!f& 7ven then, there is no evidence on record to prove that appe!!ant conscious!1 and
de!iberate!1 adopted his mode of attacB to insure the accomp!ishment of his crimina! desi.n
without risB to himse!f& ;t appears to us that appe!!ant acted on the spur of the moment& /heir
meetin. was b1 chance& /he1 were stran.ers to each other& /he time between the initia!
encounter and the shootin. was short and unbroBen& /he shootin. of Chapman was thus the
resu!t of a rash and impetuous impu!se on the part of appe!!ant rather than a de!iberate act of wi!!&
6e have consistent!1 ru!ed that mere suddenness of the attacB on the victim wou!d not, b1 itse!f,
constitute treacher1&
187
(ence, absent an1 ?ua!if1in. circumstance, appe!!ant shou!d on!1 be he!d
!iab!e for (omicide for the shootin. and Bi!!in. of Chapman&
s to the woundin. of ,ussi 4eino and the Bi!!in. of 0aureen (u!tman, we ho!d that treacher1
c!ear!1 attended the commission of the crimes& /he evidence shows that after shootin. Chapman
in co!d b!ood, appe!!ant ordered 4eino to sit on the pavement& 0aureen became h1sterica! and
wandered to the side of appe!!ant3s car& 6hen appe!!ant went after her, 0aureen moved around
his car and tried to put some distance between them& fter a minute or two, appe!!ant .ot to
0aureen and ordered her to sit beside 4eino on the pavement& 6hi!e seated, unarmed and
be..in. for merc1, the two were .unned down b1 appe!!ant& C!ear!1, appe!!ant purpose!1 p!aced
his two victims in a comp!ete!1 defense!ess position before shootin. them& /here was an
appreciab!e !apse of time between the Bi!!in. of Chapman and the shootin. of 4eino and
(u!tman Q a period which appe!!ant used to prepare for a mode of attacB which ensured the
eAecution of the crime without risB to himse!f& /reacher1 was thus correct!1 appreciated b1 the
tria! court a.ainst appe!!ant insofar as the Bi!!in. of (u!tman and the woundin. of 4eino are
concerned&
E and E;
6e come now to the civi! !iabi!it1 imposed a.ainst appe!!ant& ppe!!ant posits that the awards of
mora! and eAemp!ar1 dama.es and for !oss of earnin. capacit1 of 0aureen (u!tman, 'o!and
Chapman and ,ussi 4eino were eAorbitant& (e !iBewise c!aims that the tria! court3s award of
attorne13s fees was eAcessive&
;n its Decision, the tria! court awarded to ,ussi 4eino end the heirs of victims (u!tman and
Chapman the fo!!owin. dama.es5
1& 8or the murder of 'o!and ,ohn Chapman, appe!!ant was sentenced to pa1 the
heirs of the deceased the sum of 8ift1 /housand >esos ">*0,000&00# as indemnit1
for death and the sum of 8ive (undred /housand >esos ">*00,000&00# as
moderate or temperate and eAemp!ar1 dama.es&
2& 8or the murder of 0aureen )avarro (u!tman, appe!!ant was sentenced to pa1
the heirs of the deceased the sum of5 8ift1 /housand >esos ">*0,000&00# as
indemnit1 for death@ /wo 0i!!ion /hree (undred 8ift1 /housand 8our (undred
SiAt1$9ne >esos and 7i.ht1$/hree Centavos
">2,+*0,=61&8+# as actua! dama.es@ /hirteen 0i!!ion >esos ">1+,000,000&00# for
!oss of earnin. capacit1 of deceased@ and, 9ne 0i!!ion >esos as mora!, moderate
and eAemp!ar1 dama.es&
+& 8or the shootin. of ,ussi 9!avi 4eino, appe!!ant was sentenced to pa15 /hirt1
thousand pesos ">+0,000&00# as indemnit1 for the inDur1@ 9ne (undred 7i.hteen
/housand /hree$(undred SiAt1 )ine >esos and 7i.ht1$8our Centavos
">118,+62&8=# and the sum e?uiva!ent in >hi!ippine pesos of :&S&S**,600&00, both
as actua! dama.es@ an amount e?uiva!ent in >hi!ippine pesos of :&S&S=0,000&00,
for !oss of earnin. capacit1 of ,ussi 4eino@ and, 9ne 0i!!ion >esos
">1,000,000&00# as mora!, moderate and eAemp!ar1 dama.es&
=& ;n a!! three cases, appe!!ant was a!so ordered to pa1 each of the offended parties
the sum of 9ne 0i!!ion >esos "or a tota! of three mi!!ion pesos# for attorne13s fees
and eApenses of !iti.ation&
*& Costs of !iti.ation&
188
/he ear!1 case of (eirs of Raymundo Castro v& Bustos
189
discussed in detai! the matter of
dama.es recoverab!e in case of death arisin. from a fe!on1, thus5
6hen the commission of a crime resu!ts in death, the civi! ob!i.ations arisin.
therefrom are .overned b1 pena! !aws, C& & & subDect to the provisions of rt& 21--,
and of the pertinent provisions of Chapter 2, >re!iminar1 /it!e on (uman
'e!ations, and of /it!e OE;;; of this BooB "BooB ;E# re.u!atin. dama.es&C "rt&
1161, Civi! Code#
/hus, Cever1 person crimina!!1 !iab!e for a fe!on1 is a!so civi!!1 !iab!e&C "rt& 100,
'evised >ena! Code#& /his civi! !iabi!it1, in case the fe!on1 invo!ves death,
inc!udes indemnification for conse?uentia! dama.es "rt& 10=, id&# and said
conse?uentia! dama.es in turn inc!ude C& & & those suffered b1 his fami!1 or b1 a
third person b1 reason of the crime&C "rt& 10-, id&# Since these provisions are
subDect, however, as above indicated, to certain provisions of the Civi! Code, "w#e
wi!! now turn to said provisions&
/he .enera! ru!e in the Civi! Code is that5
;n crimes and /uasi%delicts, the defendant sha!! be !iab!e for a!!
dama.es which are the natura! and probab!e conse?uences of the
act or omission comp!ained of& ;t is not necessar1 that such
dama.es have been foreseen or cou!d have reasonab!1 foreseen b1
the defendant& "rt& 2202#
6hen, however, the crime committed invo!ves death, there is rt& 2206 which
provides thus5
/he amount of dama.es for death caused b1 a crime or /uasi%
delict sha!! be at !east three thousand pesos even thou.h there ma1
have been miti.atin. circumstances& ;n addition5
"1# /he defendant sha!! be !iab!e for the !oss of the earnin.
capacit1 of the deceased, and the indemnit1 sha!! be paid to the
heirs of the !atter@ such indemnit1 sha!! in ever1 case be assessed
and awarded b1 the court, un!ess the deceased on account of
permanent ph1sica! disabi!it1 not caused b1 the defendant, had no
earnin. capacit1 at the time of his death@
"2# ;f the deceased was ob!i.ed to .ive support accordin. to the
provisions of artic!e 221, the recipient who is not an heir ca!!ed to
the descendant3s inheritance b1 !aw of testate or intestate
succession, ma1 demand support from the person causin. the
death, for a period not eAceedin. five 1ears, the eAact duration to
be fiAed b1 the court@
"+# /he spouse, !e.itimate or i!!e.itimate descendants and
ascendants of the deceased ma1 demand mora! dama.es for menta!
an.uish b1 reason of the death of the deceased&
/he amount of >+,000 referred to in the above artic!e has a!read1 been increased
b1 this Court first, to >6,000&00 in People v& Amansec, 80 >hi!& =26, and !ate!1 to
>12,000&00 in the case of People v& Panto,a, %&'& )o& 4$18-2+, promu!.ated
9ctober 11, 1268
190
, and it must be stressed that this amount, as we!! as the
amount of mora! dama.es, ma1 be adDudicated even without proof of pecuniar1
!oss, the assessment of the mora! dama.es bein. C!eft to the discretion of the
court, accordin. to the circumstances of each case&C "rt& 2216#
7Aemp!ar1 dama.es ma1 a!so be imposed as a part of this civi! !iabi!it1 when the
crime has been committed with one or more a..ravatin. circumstances, such
dama.es bein. Cseparate and distinct from fines and sha!! be paid to the offended
part1&C "rt& 22+0#& 7Aemp!ar1 dama.es cannot however be recovered as a matter
of ri.ht@ the court wi!! decide whether or not the1 shou!d be .iven& "rt& 22++#
;n an1 event, save as eApress!1 provided in connection with the indemnit1 for the
so!e fact of death "1st par&, rt& 2206# and is cases wherein eAemp!ar1 dama.es
are awarded precise!1 because of the attendance of a..ravatin. circumstances,
"rt& 22+0# C& & & dama.es to be adDudicated ma1 be respective!1 increased or
!essened accordin. to the a..ravatin. or miti.atin. circumstances,C "rt& 220=#
Cbut the part1 sufferin. the !oss or inDur1 must eAercise the di!i.ence of a .ood
father of a fami!1 to minimiFe the dama.es resu!tin. from the act or omission in
?uestion&C "rt& 220+# C;nterest as a part of the dama.es, ma1, in a proper case, be
adDudicated in the discretion of the Court&C "rt& 2211# s to attorne1s3 fees and
eApenses of !iti.ation, the same ma1 be recovered on!1 when eAemp!ar1 dama.es
have been .ranted "rt& 2208, par& 1# or & & & when there is a separate civi! action&
Stated different!1, when death occurs as a resu!t of a crime, the heirs of the
deceased are entit!ed to the fo!!owin. items of dama.es5
1& s indemnit1 for the death of the victim of the offense Q
>12,000&00 "now >*0,000&00#, without the need of an1 evidence or
proof of dama.es, and even thou.h there ma1 have been miti.atin.
circumstances attendin. the commission of the offense&
2& s indemnit1 for !oss of earnin. capacit1 of the deceased Q an
amount to be fiAed b1 the court accordin. to the circumstances of
the deceased re!ated to his actua! income at the time of death and
his probab!e !ife eApectanc1, the said indemnit1 to be assessed and
awarded b1 the court as a matter of dut1, un!ess the deceased had
no earnin. capacit1 at said time on account of permanent disabi!it1
not caused b1 the accused& ;f the deceased was ob!i.ed to .ive
support, under rt& 221, Civi! Code, the recipient who is not an
heir, ma1 demand support from the accused for not more than five
1ears, the eAact duration to be fiAed b1 the court&
+& s mora! dama.es for menta! an.uish, Q an amount to be fiAed
b1 the court& /his ma1 be recovered even b1 the i!!e.itimate
descendants and ascendants of the deceased&
=& s eAemp!ar1 dama.es, when the crime is attended b1 one or
more a..ravatin. circumstances, Q an amount to be fiAed in the
discretion of the court, the same to be considered separate from
fines&
*& s attorne13s fees and eApenses of !iti.ation, Q the actua!
amount thereof, "but on!1 when a separate civi! action to recover
civi! !iabi!it1 has been fi!ed or when eAemp!ar1 dama.es are
awarded#&
6& ;nterests in the proper cases&
-& ;t must be emphasiFed that the indemnities for !oss of earnin.
capacit1 of the deceased and for mora! dama.es are recoverable
separately rom and in addition to the fiAed sum of >12,000&00
"now >*0,000&00# correspondin. to the indemnit1 for the so!e fact
of death, and that these dama.es ma1, however, be respective!1
increased or !essened accordin. to the miti.atin. or a..ravatin.
circumstances, eAcept items 1 and = above, for obvious reasons&
191
6e sha!! first review the dama.es awarded to the heirs of '94)D ,9() C(>0) in !i.ht
of the !aw and the case !aw&
ppe!!ant c!aims that the award of 8ive (undred /housand ">*00,000&00# pesos as moderate or
temperate and eAemp!ar1 dama.es to the heirs of 'o!and ,ohn Chapman was base!ess&
6e start with the observation that the tria! court shou!d not have !umped to.ether the awards for
moderate or temperate and eAemp!ar1 dama.es at 8ive (undred /housand >esos ">*00,000&00#,
without specif1in. the particu!ar amount which corresponds to each, as the1 are of a different
Bind& 6e sha!!, however, consider their propriet1 and reasonab!eness&
/he amount of 8ive (undred /housand ">*00,000&00# pesos cannot be .iven as temperate or
moderate dama.es for the records do not show an1 basis for sustainin. the award& )or can it be
.iven as eAemp!ar1 dama.es& /he Bi!!in. of Chapman was not attended b1 either evident
premeditation or treacher1& Be that as it ma1, the award can be considered as one for mora!
dama.es under rtic!e 2206 "+# of the )ew Civi! Code&
192
;t states5
rt& 2206& /he amount of dama.es for death caused b1 a crime & & & sha!! be at
!east "fift1 thousand pesos, under current Durisprudence# & & & ;n addition5
AAA AAA AAA
"+# /he spouse, !e.itimate or i!!e.itimate descendants and ascendants of the
deceased ma1 demand mora! dama.es for menta! an.uish b1 reason of the death
of the deceased&
0oreover, considerin. the shocBin. and sense!ess a..ression committed b1 appe!!ant, we
increase the amount of mora! dama.es to 9ne 0i!!ion ">1,000,000&00# pesos for the death of
Chapman&
6e neAt ru!e on the !e.a!it1 of dama.es awarded to the heirs of 0:'77) )E''9
(:4/0)&
ppe!!ant ar.ues that the dama.es for the death of 0aureen shou!d be awarded to her mother,
Eivian (u!tman, and her natura! father& (e contends that under rtic!e +*2 of the )ew Civi!
Code, nders (u!tman as adoptive father of 0aureen, is not entit!ed to said award& 9n!1 the
parents b1 nature of 0aureen shou!d inherit from her&
6e reDect the ar.ument& :nder the 8ami!1 Code which was a!read1 in effect at the time of
0aureen3s death, nders (u!tman, as adoptive father, is entit!ed to the award made b1 the tria!
court& rtic!e 120 of the 8ami!1 Code provides5
AAA AAA AAA
"2# 6hen the parents, !e.itimate or i!!e.itimate, or the !e.itimate descendants of
the adopted concur with the adopters, the1 sha!! divide the entire estate, one$ha!f
to be inherited b1 the parents or ascendants and the other ha!f, b1 the adopters@
AAA AAA AAA
"*# 6hen on!1 the adopters survive, the1 sha!! inherit the entire estate@
;t does not appear on the records whether 0aureen was survived b1 her natura! father& Durin. the
tria! of these cases, on!1 Eivian and nders (u!tman testified on their c!aim of dama.es& (ence,
we find that the award of dama.es in their favor has sufficient factua! and !e.a! basis&
ppe!!ant a!so ur.es that the award to the heirs of 0aureen (u!tman of 9ne 0i!!ion >esos
">1,000,000&00# as mora! and eAemp!ar1 dama.es is unDustified or, at the ver1 !east, eAorbitant
and shou!d be reduced&
6e ho!d that the award of 9ne 0i!!ion ">1,000,000&00# pesos is amp!1 Dustified b1 the
circumstances& /he records revea! that 0aureen recovered between !ife and death for ninet1$
seven "2-# da1s& (er fami!1 eAperienced the peaBs and va!!e1s of unspeaBab!e sufferin.& Durin.
that time, she underwent brain sur.er1 three "+# times& (er condition was never stab!e and
remained critica!& ;t was a!wa1s touch and .o with death& She cou!d not be !eft a!one at the
hospita!& (er parents had to be perpetua!!1 b1 her side at !east siA "6# to seven "-# hours dai!1&
fter the shootin., their sib!in.s had to be sent bacB to Sweden for their safet1& 4eft unattended,
her fami!13s business tooB a downspin& Soon, her fami!13s assets were dep!eted, then wiped out&
tota! of twent1$three "2+# doctors attended to her and their bi!!s ba!!ooned without abatement&
/he1 were forced to re!1 on the .oodness of the .racious& (er fami!1 started receivin.
contributions from other peop!e to defra1 the medica! eApenses and hospita! bi!!s&
19G
0aureen
never re.ained consciousness unti! her demise on 9ctober 1-, 1221, at the tender a.e of
seventeen& :nder the fore.oin. circumstances, we thus find the award of 9ne 0i!!ion >esos
">1,000,000&00# as mora! dama.es to be reasonab!e&
0oreover, we find that the .rant of eAemp!ar1 dama.es is ca!!ed for b1 the circumstances of the
case& :nder rtic!e 2222 of the Civi! Code,
19H
in addition to the award of mora! dama.es,
eAemp!ar1 or corrective dama.es ma1 be adDud.ed in order to deter the commission of simi!ar
acts in the future& /he award for eAemp!ar1 dama.es is desi.ned to permit the courts to mou!d
behavior that has socia!!1 de!eterious conse?uences& ;ts imposition is re?uired b1 pub!ic po!ic1 to
suppress the wanton acts of an offender&
;n the case at bar, appe!!ant3s unprovoBed a..ression snuffed the !ife of 0aureen (u!tman, a .ir!
in the prime of her 1outh& (u!tman and her companions were .unned down b1 appe!!ant in co!d$
b!ood, for no apparent reason& ppe!!ant3s vicious crimina!it1 !ed to the sufferin. of his victims
and their fami!ies& Considerin. our soarin. crime rate, the imposition of eAemp!ar1 dama.es
a.ainst appe!!ant to deter others from taBin. the !ives of peop!e without an1 sense of sin is
proper& 0oreover, since the Bi!!in. of (u!tman was attended b1 treacher1 and pursuant to rtic!e
2222 of the new Civi! Code,
195
we impose an award of /wo 0i!!ion ">2,000,000&00# pesos as
eAemp!ar1 dama.es a.ainst appe!!ant for the death of 0aureen (u!tman&
6e now review the award of 9ne 0i!!ion >esos ">1,000,000&00# as mora!, moderate and
eAemp!ar1 dama.es to victim ,:SS; 47;)9&
8rom the record, it is incontrovertib!e that 4eino !iBewise suffered eAtensive inDuries as a resu!t
of the shootin.& (is upper Daw bone was shattered& (e wou!d need a bone transp!ant operation to
restore it& (is ton.ue was a!so inDured& (e partia!!1 !ost his sense of taste for his taste buds were
a!so affected& 6hen he was dischar.ed from the hospita!, he had difficu!t1 in speaBin. and had to
be fed throu.h a tube runnin. down his nose& (e !ost ei.ht of his teeth& /he roots of his teeth
were cut off and the raw nerves were eAposed& But a!! these speaB on!1 of his ph1sica! inDuries
and sufferin.& 0ore devastatin. was the emotiona! strain that distressed 4eino& (is parents were
in 7urope for a vacation at the time of the shootin.& 9n!1 a nei.hbor attended to him at the
hospita!& ;t tooB two "2# da1s for his father to come and comfort b1 his bedside& 4eino had
troub!e s!eepin. in peace at ni.ht& /he traumatic event woBe him up in the midd!e of the ni.ht&
B!acB memories of the incident Bept comin. bacB to
mind&
196
:nderstab!1, the i!!$effects of the incident spi!!ed over his fami!1& Seppo 4eino, ,ussi3s
father, was tortured b1 thou.hts of insecurit1& (e had to re!ocate his entire fami!1 to 7urope
where he fe!t the1 wou!d be safe&
197
:nder the fore.oin. circumstances, we find that an award of
9ne 0i!!ion ">1,000,000&00# pesos to ,ussi 4eino as indemnit1 for mora! dama.es is Dustified
and reasonab!e&
s in the case of (u!tman, since the shootin. of 4eino was committed with treacher1 and
pursuant to rtic!e 2222 of the )ew Civi! Code,
198
appe!!ant is additiona!!1 adDud.ed !iab!e for
the pa1ment to 4eino of /wo 0i!!ion ">2,000,000&00# pesos as eAemp!ar1 dama.es&
6e come now to the tria! court3s monetar1 award to compensate the 49SS 98 7');)%
C>C;/< 98 E;C/;0S ,:SS; 47;)9 and 0:'77) (:4/0)&
/o be compensated for !oss of earnin. capacit1, it is not necessar1 that the victim, at the time of
inDur1 or death, is .ainfu!!1 emp!o1ed& Compensation of this nature is awarded not for !oss of
earnin.s but for !oss of capacit1 to earn mone1& ;n Cariaga v& Laguna Tayabas Bus Company,
199

we awarded to the heirs of Caria.a a sum representin. !oss of his earnin. capacit1 a!thou.h he
was sti!! a medica! student at the time of inDur1& (owever, the award was not without basis for
Caria.a was then a fourth 1ear medica! student at a reputab!e schoo!@ his scho!astic record, which
was presented at the tria!, Dustified an assumption that he wou!d have been ab!e to finish his
course and pass the board in due time@ and a doctor, presented as witness for the appe!!ee,
testified as to the amount of income Caria.a wou!d have earned had he finished his medica!
studies&
;n the case at bar, the tria! court awarded the amount, e?uiva!ent in >hi!ippine pesos, of 8ort1
capacit1 of ,:SS; 47;)9& 6e a.ree with appe!!ant that this amount is hi.h!1 specu!ative and
shou!d be denied considerin. that 4eino had on!1 earned a hi.h schoo! de.ree at the ;nternationa!
Schoo!, 0ani!a, in 1282& (e went bacB to 8in!and to serve the mi!itar1 and has Dust arrived in
0ani!a in 8ebruar1 1221 to pursue his ambition to become a pi!ot& t the time of the shootin. on
,u!1 1+, 1221, he has Dust enro!!ed at the 0ani!a ero C!ub to become a professiona! pi!ot& (e
was thus on!1 on his first 1ear, first semester, in said schoo! and was practica!!1, a mere hi.h
schoo! .raduate& :nder the fore.oin. circumstances, we find the records wantin. with
substantia! evidence to Dustif1 a reasonab!e assumption that 4eino wou!d have been ab!e to finish
his studies at the 0ani!a ero C!ub and u!timate!1 become a professiona! pi!ot&
6e now pass upon the propriet1 of the award of /hirteen 0i!!ion >esos ">1+,000,000&00# for
!oss of earnin. capacit1 of deceased 0:'77) (:4/0)& 6e find that the award is not
supported b1 the records&
;n adDud.in. an award for 0aureen3s !oss of earnin. capacit1, the tria! court incorrect!1 used the
month!1 sa!ar1 of a secretar1 worBin. in Sweden, computed at two thousand do!!ars "S2,000&00#
a month, as per the estimate .iven b1 nders (u!tman& )owhere in the records does it appear
that, at the time of her death, 0aureen had ac?uired the sBi!!s needed for a secretaria! Dob or that
she intended to taBe a secretaria! course in preparation for such Dob in Sweden& nders (u!tman
himse!f testified that there was uncertaint1 as to 0aureen3s future career path, thus5
//<& E;)4:)5
G 0r& 6itness, if 0aureen wou!d not been "sic# shot and she
continued her studies, what professiona! career wou!d she "sic# !iBe
to pursue considerin. her interests and inc!inationsH
6;/)7SS5
/hat is ver1 difficu!t to sa1& She has Dust turned 1- and our
proDection is that, certain!1 she wou!d have been an artist in the
creative side& She wou!d have become an actress or a movie
producer or probab!1 she wou!d have been a co!!e.e .raduate&
//<& E;)4:)5
G But if 1ou wou!d Dust sa1 based on the sa!ar1 of a secretar1 in
Sweden, how much wou!d she have much earnedH
& )ot !ess than /wo /housand Do!!ars a month&
200
C!ear!1, there is no factua! basis for the award of thirteen mi!!ion ">1+,000,000&00# pesos to the
heirs of 0aureen far !oss of earnin. capacit1 as a probab!e secretar1 in Sweden&
;n an1 event, what was proved on record is that after .raduatin. from hi.h schoo!, 0aureen tooB
up a short persona!it1 deve!opment course at the ,ohn 'oberts >owers& 0aureen was emp!o1ed
at the ,ohn 'oberts >owers at the time of her death& ;t was her first Dob& ;n fact, she had Dust
received her first sa!ar1, for which reason she went out with her friends to ce!ebrate on that
fatefu! da1& (owever, neither the nature of her worB nor her sa!ar1 in said compan1 was
disc!osed at the tria!& /hus, to compute the award for 0aureen3s !oss of earnin. capacit1, we are
constrained to use the minimum wa.e prevai!in. as of the date of her death "9ctober 1-, 1221#,
i.e., one hundred ei.hteen pesos ">118&00#&
201
!!owin. for reasonab!e and necessar1 eApenses in
the amount of >12,800&00, her net income per annum wou!d amount to >26,8*2&1-&
202
(ence,
usin. the formu!a repeated!1 adopted b1 this Court5
20G
"2T+ A [80 Q a.e of victim at time of
death]# A a reasonab!e portion of the net income which wou!d have been received b1 the heirs as
support,
20H
we fiA the award for !oss of earnin. as capacit1 of deceased 0aureen (u!tman at
8ive (undred SiAt1$8our /housand 8ort1$/wo >esos and 8ift1$Seven Centavos ">*6=,0=2&*-#&
;t a!so bears emphasis that in the computation of the award for !oss of earnin. capacit1 of the
deceased, the !ife eApectanc1 of the deceased3s heirs is not factored in& /he ru!e is we!!$sett!ed
that the award of dama.es for death is computed on the basis of the !ife eApectanc1 of the
deceased, and not the beneficiar1&
205
4ast!1, appe!!ant seeBs a reduction of the award of attorne13s fees in the amount of /hree 0i!!ion
>esos ">+,000,000&00#, c!aimin. that the same is eAorbitant&
6e disa.ree& /he three "+# private comp!ainants were represented b1 the CC' !aw firm, with
tt1& 'o.e!io Ein!uan as !ead counse!& /he1 a.reed to pa1 the amount of 9ne 0i!!ion
">1,000,000&00# pesos each as attorne13s fees and for !iti.ation eApenses& /he three crimina!
cases were conso!idated& continuous tria! was conducted, with some hearin.s havin. both
mornin. and afternoon sessions& /he tria! !asted for a!most one and a ha!f 1ears& 0ore than fort1
"=0# witnesses testified durin. the hearin.s& Severa! p!eadin.s were prepared and fi!ed& tota! of
siAt1$ei.ht "68# documentar1 eAhibits were presented b1 the prosecution& ;ncidents re!ated to the
tria! of the cases came up to this Court for review at !east twice durin. the pendenc1 of the tria!&
206
%iven these circumstances and the evident effort eAerted b1 the private prosecutor throu.hout
the tria!, the tria! court3s award of a tota! of /hree 0i!!ion ">+,000,000&00# pesos as attorne13s
fees and !iti.ation eApenses appears Dust and reasonab!e&
E;;
;n his !ast assi.ned error, appe!!ant ur.es that the hearin.s conducted on the cases, where no !ess
than fort1$one "=1# witnesses were presented b1 the parties,
207
were mere!1 hearin.s on the
petition for bai! concernin. the murder char.e for the Bi!!in. of 'o!and Chapman, and not a tria!
on the merits of a!! three "+# cases& ppe!!ant insists that after the termination of the hearin., he
sti!! had the ri.ht to adduce evidence at the tria! proper& (e c!aims he was denied due process
when the tria! court considered a!! the cases submitted for decision after the defense waived its
ri.ht to present its surrebutta! evidence&
ppe!!ant3s position is untenab!e& /his issue was reso!ved at the ver1 first hearin. of the cases on
u.ust 2, 1221& /he incident then pendin. was appe!!ant3s petition for bai! for the murder of
Chapman& ;t wi!! be remembered that, initia!!1, there was on!1 one murder char.e a.ainst
appe!!ant since 0aureen (u!tman succumbed to death durin. the course of the proceedin.s on
9ctober 1-, 1221&
/hus, at the initia! hearin. on u.ust 2, 1221, the incident for reso!ution was appe!!ant3s petition
for bai!& /he prosecution sou.ht to present the survivin. victim, ,ussi 4eino, to testif1 on a!!
three "+# char.es to obviate de!a1 and inconvenience since a!! three "+# char.es invo!ved one
continuin. incident& ppe!!ant, throu.h counse!, obDected to the testimon1 of 4eino insofar as the
two "2# frustrated murder char.es "with respect to the woundin. of 4eino and (u!tman# were
concerned& (e ar.ued that since the pendin. incident was the petition for bai! with respect to the
Bi!!in. of Chapman, an1 testimon1 re!ative to the two "2# other char.es in which bai! were
recommended was irre!evant&
fter ar.uments, the defense su..ested that if the prosecution wou!d present 4eino to testif1 on
a!! three "+# char.es, it shou!d wait unti! after accused3s arrain.ment on u.ust 1=, 1221&
208
/he
prosecution a.reed on the condition that there sha!! be tria! on the merits and, at the same time,
hearin. on the petition for bai!& Defense counse! a.reed&
209
s a.reed upon, accused was arrai.ned and the prosecution presented ,ussi 4eino as its first
witness to testif1 on a!! three "+# cases& )o obDection was made b1 the defense&
210
Subse?uent proceedin.s !iBewise disprove appe!!ant3s insistence that the hearin.s conducted b1
the tria! court were !imited to the petition for bai!, vi15
1& /he prosecution presented a!! their witnesses and documentar1 evidence
re!ative to the shootin. incident, inc!udin. evidence in support of the c!aim for
dama.es& /hese witnesses were eAtensive!1 cross$eAamined b1 the defense
counse!s& /he defense never obDected that evidence on dama.es wou!d be
unnecessar1 if its intention was rea!!1 to !imit presentation of evidence to
appe!!ant3s petition for bai!&
2& fter the prosecution and the defense rested their cases, the tria! court issued an
9rder
211
directin. the parties to submit their 0emorandum, after which Cthe main
case as we!! as the petition for bai! are respective!1 submitted for Decision and
'eso!ution&C fter receipt of this 9rder, the defense counse! fi!ed two "2# motions
for eAtension of time to fi!e the defense 0emorandum& ;n both 0otions, the
defense did not obDect to the tria! court3s 9rder submittin. for decision the main
case and the petition for bai!& )either did it move for a reconsideration of this
9rder and notif1 the court that it sti!! had witnesses to present&
+& ;n comp!iance with said 9rder, appe!!ant3s counse!, tt1& 'odo!fo ,imeneF, fi!ed
a 0emorandum and Supp!ementa! 0emorandum pra1in. for accused3s ac?uitta!&
/his is inconsistent with the defense3s position that the hearin. conducted was
on!1 on the petition for bai!& ;f the defense insist that what was submitted for
decision was on!1 his petition for bai!, he wou!d have on!1 pra1ed that he be
.ranted bai!&
=& :pon receipt of the notice of promu!.ation of Dud.ment from the tria! court, the
defense did not interpose an1 obDection to the intended promu!.ation& ;n fact, the
defense attended the promu!.ation of the Decision and manifested that the1 were
read1 therefor&
!! these c!ear!1 show that the merits of the cases and the petition for bai! were heard
simu!taneous!1 and appe!!ant ac?uiesced thereto& 0oreover, appe!!ant3s ri.ht to present
additiona! evidence was not abrid.ed b1 the tria! court& 9n the contrar1, the records disc!ose that
the tria! court afforded the defense fair opportunit1 to adduce its evidence& ;t tooB the defense
a!most one and a ha!f 1ears to submit its evidence& /he defense presented more than twent1 "20#
witnesses and severa! documentar1 evidence& ;t was on!1 after the tria! court rendered a decision
a.ainst appe!!ant that he fi!ed a motion for new
tria!,
212
throu.h his new counse!, tt1& %atma1tan, ,r& 8or the first time, he a!!e.ed that the Doint
decision of the cases, both on the merits and on the petition for bai!, was irre.u!ar for he was not
.iven a chance to present further evidence to corroborate his a!ibi& 6e note that in his motion for
new tria!,
21G
appe!!ant did not even identif1 his a!!e.ed additiona! witnesses and the substance of
their testimonies& )or was it shown that he cou!d not have produced these evidence at the tria!
with reasonab!e di!i.ence& ppe!!ant3s motion was a patent p!o1 to de!a1 the decision on his
cases& (is motion was proper!1 denied b1 the tria! court&
;) E;76 6(7'798, we hereb1 88;'0 6;/( 09D;8;C/;9)S the Decision of the tria!
court, dated December 22, 1222, thus5
"1# ;n Crimina! Case )o& 21$=60*, findin. accused C!audio ,& /eehanBee, ,r&,
.ui!t1 be1ond reasonab!e doubt of the crime of (omicide for the shootin. of
'o!and ,ohn Chapman, and sentencin. said accused to suffer an indeterminate
pena!t1 of imprisonment of ei.ht "8# 1ears and one "1# da1 of prision mayor as
minimum to fourteen "1=# 1ears, ei.ht "8# months and one "1# da1 of reclusion
temporal as maAimum, and to pa1 the heirs of the said deceased the fo!!owin.
amounts5 8ift1 /housand ">*0,000&00# pesos as indemnit1 for the victim3s death@
and, 9ne 0i!!ion ">1,000,000&00# pesos as mora! dama.es&
"2# ;n Crimina! Case )o& 21$=606, findin. accused C!audio ,& /eehanBee, ,r&,
.ui!t1 be1ond reasonab!e doubt of the crime of 0urder, ?ua!ified b1 treacher1, for
the shootin. of 0aureen )avarro (u!tman, and sentencin. him to suffer
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua, and to pa1 the heirs of the said deceased the
fo!!owin. amounts5 8ift1 /housand ">*0,000&00# pesos as indemnit1 for her
death@ /wo 0i!!ion /hree (undred 8ift1 /housand 8our (undred SiAt1$9ne
>esos and 7i.ht1$/hree Centavos ">2,+*0,=61&8+# as actua! dama.es@ 8ive
(undred SiAt1$8our /housand 8ourt1$/wo >esos and 8ift1$Seven Centavos
">*6=,0=2&*-# for !oss of earnin. capacit1 of said deceased@ 9ne 0i!!ion >esos
">1,000,000&00# as mora! dama.es@ and /wo 0i!!ion ">2,000,000&00# pesos as
eAemp!ar1 dama.es&
"+# ;n Crimina! Case )o& 21$=80-, findin. accused C!audio ,& /eehanBee, ,r&,
.ui!t1 be1ond reasonab!e doubt of the crime of 8rustrated 0urder, ?ua!ified b1
treacher1, for the shootin. of ,ussi 9!avi 4eino, and sentencin. him to suffer the
indeterminate pena!t1 of ei.ht "8# 1ears of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen
"1=# 1ears and ei.ht "8# months of reclusion temporal as maAimum, and to pa1 the
said offended part1 the fo!!owin. amounts5 ">+0,000&00# pesos as /hirt1
/housand ">+0,000&00# pesos as indemnit1 for his inDuries@ 9ne (undred
7i.hteen /housand /hree (undred SiAt1$)ine pesos and 7i.ht1$8our Centavos
">118,+62&8=# and e?uiva!ent in >hi!ippine >esos of :&S&S**,600&00, both as
actua! dama.es@ 9ne 0i!!ion ">1,000,000&00# pesos as mora! dama.es@ and, /wo
0i!!ion ">2,000,000&00# pesos as eAemp!ar1 dama.es&
"=# ;n a!! three cases, orderin. said accused to pa1 each of the three "+# offended
parties the sum of 9ne 0i!!ion >esos ">1,000,000&00@ or a tota! of /hree 0i!!ion
[>+,000,000&00] pesos] for attorne13s fees and eApenses of !iti.ation@ and
"*# /o pa1 the costs in a!! three "+# cases&
S9 9'D7'7D&
Regalado& 8endo1a and <rancisco& ::.& concur.
3arvasa& C.:.& is on leave.
!oot-ote0
1 /he Court received the ppe!!ant3s Brief on 0arch 21, 122=, the
ppe!!ee3s Brief on )ovember 10, 122= and ppe!!ant3s 'ep!1 Brief on
0arch 6, 122*& 6ith the fi!in. of the 'ep!1 Brief, the case was deemed
submitted for decision&
2 9ri.ina! 'ecords, p& 1&
+ 0bid&, p& 220&
= 0bid, p& =1&
* /S), u.ust 2, 1221, pp& +*$+6&
6 0bid&, pp& +8 U 66&
- 0bid&, pp& 68, -1$-2&
8 0bid&, -6$82&
2 /S), u.ust 1=, 1221, pp& *$8&
10 ,ussi 4eino and 0aureen (u!tman were former schoo!mates at the
;nternationa! Schoo!&
11 /S), u.ust 1=, 1221, pp& 1*$20&
12 0bid&, pp& 21$22&
1+ 0bid&, pp&, 22$2=, 22$+0, 80&
1= Seppo 4eino, ,ussi3s father, was a 8innish nationa! and a
communications specia!ist at DB@ /S), 9ctober =, 1221, pp& 6=$6*&
1* /S), u.ust 1=, 1221, pp& +1$+2, 10=&
16 0bid&, pp& ++$=0, 10*$102&
1- 0bid&, pp& ++$+2&
18 0bid&, pp& 2-$28&
12 0bid&, pp& =0$=2, *+&
20 0bid&, pp& =+ U111&
21 'oAas3 residence was on!1 about three "+# houses awa1 from the scene
of the crime@ /S), u.ust 2-, 1221, pp& 10$11&
22 /S), September +, 1221, pp& 11 U 1=&
2+ /S), September 2+, 1221, pp& =+$=*&
2= 8!orece was about 8* steps awa1 from the scene of the crime@ /S),
u.ust 2-, 1221, p& 22&
2* /S), u.ust 2-, 1221, pp& +0, +=$+*@ see also 7Ahibit CC,C Sworn
Statement of 8!orece, 8o!der of >rosecution 7Ahibits, at p& 112&
26 See Sworn Statement of Cadenas, dated ,u!1 16, 1221, 7Ahibit CBB,C
8o!der of >rosecution 7Ahibits, at p& 1*=&
2- /S), September 2+, 1221, p& 6=&
28 /S), September +, 1221, pp& +1$+2&
22 /S), u.ust 2-, 1221, p& 21@ /S), September +, 1221, p& +2@ /S),
September 2+, 1221, p& 62&
+0 /S), September 11, 1221, pp& +0 U +2&
+1 /S), u.ust 2-, 1221, p& +*$+-, =6$=-&
+2 0bid&, p& ==&
++ /S), u.ust 1=, 1222, pp& 18$12&
+= Before 2 a&m& of ,u!1 1+, 1221, )B; Director 4im received a ca!! from
:&S& embass1 officia!s, informin. him about a shootin. incident at
DasmariKas Ei!!a.e, which resu!ted in the death of an merican citiFen
"Chapman# and the woundin. of two "2# others@ /S), 9ctober =, 1221, p&
10&
+* /S), 9ctober 2, 1221, pp& 18=$18-&
+6 0bid&, pp& 188$182, 122&
+- 0bid&, pp& 120$126&
+8 /S), u.ust 2-, 1221, pp& 122$12+, 206, 21+$218, 22=@ /S), 9ctober
2, 1221, pp& 120$121&
+2 /S), September 2+, 1221, pp& 22$102@ /S), 9ctober 2, 1221, pp& 201$
20=&
=0 /S), 9ctober =, 1221, pp& +*$=-&
=1 /S), u.ust 2-, 1221, pp& 221$22=, 2++$2+6&
=2 /S), 9ctober 2, 1221, pp& 20*$208&
=+ 0bid., pp$ 208$211&
== 7Ahibit CBB,C supra&
=* /S), 9ctober 2, 1221, pp& 218$222&
=6 0bid&, pp& 22+$228&
=- lbid&, pp& 222$2+1, 2=8$2=2&
=8 0bid&, pp& 2*2$2*=&
=2 0bid&, pp& 2**$2*-&
*0 0bid&, pp& 2*2$260&
*1 t that time, Cadenas was sta1in. at the )B; compound for securit1
purposes, to.ether with witnesses in other cases who were also p!aced
under )B; protection@ /S), 9ctober 2, 1221, pp& 268$262&
*2 7Ahibit CDD,C >hoto of the identification, 8o!der of >rosecution
7Ahibits, p& 161&
*+ /S), 9ctober 2, 1221, p& 260&
*= /S), u.ust 1=, 1221, pp& 116 U 126&
** 0bid&, pp& 120$122, 128$1+-&
*6 0bid&, pp& 1+2$1=8&
*- /S), 9ctober 2, 1221, pp& 28+$28=&
*8 /S), September +, 1221, p& +=@ /S), September 11, 1221, p& 60&
*2 0bid&, pp& +-$+8@ ibid&, pp& -2$-+&
60 0bid&, pp& +-$=2@ ibid&, pp& 68$-*&
61 /S), September +, 1221, pp& =1$==&
62 9ri.ina! 'ecords, p& -02&
6+ /S), September +, 1221, pp& ==$=*@ /S), 9ctober 12, 1222, pp& 18$12&
6= /S), September +, 1221, pp& =*$*0&
6* /S), 9ctober 2, 1221, pp& 28*$22=&
66 0bid&, pp& 22*$222&
6- s per the medico$!e.a! report of Dr& >edro >& So!is, 7Ahibit CIC,
8o!der of >rosecution 7Ahibits, p& 1+8&
68 /S), September 18, 1221, pp& 8*$22&
62 0bid&, p&2=&
-0 /S), 9ctober 2, 1221, pp& 26, 28&
-1 0bid&, pp& 22$+0&
-2 0bid&, pp& +1$+2&
-+ 0bid&, pp& ++$=+&
-= /S), September 18, 1221, pp& 2-$+2&
-* 0bid&, pp& =1$=6, **&
-6 0bid&, pp& =8$*1&
-- 0bid&, pp& *-, 68$62&
-8 0bid&, pp& 66 U -+&
-2 0bid&, pp& -6 U 82&
80 /S), 9ctober 2, 1222, pp& -*$-6, 1+2, 1+6, 186$18-&
81 0bid&, pp& --, 1*1$1*-&
82 0bid&, pp& --$81, 18+&
8+ 0bid&, pp& 81$8-&
8= 0bid&, pp& 8-$82&
8* 0bid&, pp& 22$2+&
86 0bid&, pp& 2=$10-&
8- 0bid&, pp& 11=$11-&
88 0bid&, pp& 112$11=&
82 /S), 9ctober 2, 1222, pp& 10$11, 2=&
20 s a resu!t of this accident, a crimina! char.e for recB!ess imprudence
was fi!ed a.ainst him& (owever, in view of the desistance of the victim3s
parents, the case a.ainst him was dismissed@ id&, pp& 11$1=@ See also
'eso!ution, dated 0a1 16, 1221, 7Ahibit C+0,C 8o!der of Defense 7Ahibits,
p& 60&
21 0bid&, pp& 20$=1, 6+$6=&
22 /S), ,u!1 1=, 1222, pp& =2$60, -2&
2+ 0bid&, pp& -2$80, 20&
2= /S), ,u!1 22, 1222, pp& 28, +*, =+ and 102&
2* 0bid&, pp& -=$-*&
26 /S), u.ust 10, 1222, pp& --$-8, 86$88&
2- /S), u.ust 1=, 1222, pp& 16$+0, *1$*2&
28 0bid&, pp& +1$+*&
22 /S), u.ust 18, 1222, pp& 22, 2=, ++&
100 s per re?uest of Captain 'oberto 'e1es, Chief of the Specia!
;nvesti.ation Division, 0aBati >o!ice Station@ 7Ahibit C20C, 8o!der of
Defense 7Ahibits, p& *0&
101 7Ahibit C21,C 8o!der of Defense 7Ahibits, p& *1&
102 /S), u.ust 2*, 1222, pp& 12, 1=, 20$2*, 8+$8-&
10+ /S), September 1, 1222, pp& 82$10*&
10= 8o!der of Defense 7Ahibits, p& 16&
10* /S), ,u!1 22, 1222, pp& 1=$12&
106 8o!der of Defense 7Ahibits, p& 16&
10- /S), ,u!1 22, 1222, pp& +2, +2$=0&
108 8o!der of Defense 7Ahibits, p& 1-&
102 0bid&, p& 18&
110 0bid&, p& 12&
111 /S), ,u!1 22, 1222, pp& *6$61&
112 0bid&, pp& 62$-1, -6&
11+ 8o!der of Defense 7Ahibits, at p& 21&
11= /S), u.ust =, 1222, pp& 12$12&
11* 8o!der of Defense 7Ahibits, at p& 22&
116 0bid&, at p& 2+&
11- /S), u.ust -, 1222, pp& +0$+=&
118 8o!der of Defense 7Ahibits, at p& 2+&
112 /S), u.ust -, 1222, p& +6&
120 0bid&, pp& =0 U =2&
121 8o!der of Defense 7Ahibits, at p& 2=&
122 0bid&, p& 2*&
12+ 0bid&, p& 26&
12= /S), u.ust -, 1222, p& *2&
12* 0bid&, p& 6+&
126 0bid&, pp& --$-8&
12- 8o!der of Defense 7Ahibits, p& 28&
128 0bid&, pp& 6+$6=&
122 0bid&, p& 6=&
1+0 /S), u.ust 12, 1222, pp& 68, -2 and -=&
1+1 /S), 9ctober 12, 1222, pp& 18$12@ /here was a statement in the
unsi.ned sworn statement prepared b1 Ba!dado "7Ahibit C(((C# to the
effect that 0an.ubat saw accused at the 0aBati po!ice station but
cate.orica!!1 stated that accused was not the .unman&
1+2 0bid&, pp& 110$116&
1++ 0bid&, pp& 116$11-&
1+= 0bid&, pp& 118$121&
1+* 9ri.ina! 'ecords, p& -=0&
1+6 9rder, dated 9ctober 22, 1222, 9ri.ina! 'ecords, p& -=+&
1+- See 0otion for dditiona! /ime, dated )ovember 6, 1222, p& -==&
1+8 Decision, penned b1 ,ud.e ,ob B& 0ada1a., presidin. Dud.e, 0aBati
'e.iona! /ria! Court, Branch 1=*@ Rollo, pp& *0$-8&
1+2 9ri.ina! 'ecords, pp& 282$1001&
1=0 tt1& 4ino 0& >ataDo, 8ormer ssociate ,ustice of this Court,
represented accused in the present appea!&
1=1 4a8ave and ;srae!, Crimina! >rocedure, (ornbooB Series, 1222 ed&, p&
+*+&
1=2 0bid&
1=+ See )ei! v& Bi..ers, =02 :S 188 [12-+]@ 0anson v& Brathwaite, =+2
:S 28 [12--]@ De! Carmen, Crimina! >rocedure, 4aw and >ractice, +rd
7dition, p& +=6&
1== /S), u.ust 1=, 1221, p& 126&
1=* 0bid, pp& 116, 120$122&
1=6 /S), 9ctober 2, 1221, pp& 2-6$2--&
1=- /S), u.ust 1-, 1221, p& 11-&
1=8 0bid&
1=2 /S), u.ust 1=, 1221, p& 11-&
1*0 Supra&
1*1 >eop!e v& Campa, %&'& )o& 10*+21, 8ebruar1 28, 122=, 2+0 SC'
=+1&
1*2 >eop!e v& pawan, %&'& )o& 8*+22, u.ust 16, 122=, 2+* SC' +**&
1*+ /S), September 2+, 1221, pp& 26, 10-$102&
1*= >eop!e v& Bon.adi!!o, %&'& )o& 2668-, ,u!1 20, 122=, 2+= SC' 2++@
>eop!e v& ;srae!, %&'& )o& 2-02-, 0arch 11, 122=, 2+1 SC' 1**@ >eop!e
v& 8uertes, %&'& )o& 10=06-, ,anuar1 1-, 122=, 222 SC' 282&
1** /S), September 2+, 1221, pp& 20$2-&
1*6 9ri.ina! 'ecords, p& -02&
1*- Section =8, 'u!e 1+0, 'u!es of Court&
1*8 4a8ave and ;srae!, op cit, p& 1160&
1*2 0bid& 'u!in.s were based on the so$ca!!ed (arm!ess 7rror !e.is!ation
inc!uded in the 7n.!ish ,udicature ct of 18-+&
160 0bid&, p& 1161&
161 >eop!e v& %arcia, %&'& )o& 10*80*, u.ust 16, 122=, 2+* SC' +-1@
>eop!e v& Chatto, %&'& )o& 102-0=, 212 SC' -8*@ >eop!e v& >eran, %&'&
)o& 2*2*2, 9ctober 26, 1222, 21* SC' 1*2@ >eop!e v& >iFarro, %&'& )o&
=2282, ,u!1 6, 1222, 211 SC' +2*, ++6@ >eop!e v& 0artineF, %&'& )o&
10081+, ,anuar1 +1, 1222, 20* SC' 666&
162 /S), 9ctober 2, 1222, pp& +-$+2&
16+ /S), u.ust 2-, 1221, pp& +, +=$+*&
16= /S), September +, 1221, pp& 28$22&
16* /S), September 2+, 1221, p& 62&
166 7Ahibit C=$cC, 8o!der of Defense 7Ahibits, at p& 12&
16- /S), 9ctober =, 1221, p& =2@ /S), ,u!1 1=, 1222, pp& -2$8=&
168 /S), 9ctober =, 1221, p& 80&
162 /urner, Crimina!ities, Bancroft 6hitne1 Co&, 121* ed&, p& 1=1 See
also 'ichardson, 0odern Scientific 7vidence, nderson Co&, p& =2*&
1-0 >eop!e v& Duca1, %&'& )o& 862+2, u.ust 2, 122+, 22* SC' 1@
>eop!e v& (ubi!o, %&'& )o& 101-=1, 220 SC' +82@ >eop!e v& >asi!iao,
%&'& )o& 281*2$*+, 9ctober 26, 1222, 21* SC' 16+@ >eop!e v& C!amor,
%&'& )o& 82-08, ,u!1 1, 1221, 128 SC' 6=2@ >eop!e v& /a!in.dan, %&'&
)o& 2=++2, )ovember 2, 1220, 121 SC' +++&
1-1 /S), 9ctober 12, 1222, 110, 11=$11-&
1-2 7Ahibit C21,C 8o!der of Defense 7Ahibits, p& *1&
1-+ Sheppard v& 0aAwe!!, +8= :S +++, +*0, 86 S Ct& 1*0-, 1*1*, 16 4 ed&
600 [1266]&
1-= 0arB /wain, SBecthes, )ew and 9!d, )ew <orB, (arper and Bros&
1822&
1-* 4$+082=, 0arch 2*, 12-0, +2 SC' 108&
1-6 /S), u.ust 1=, 1221, p& *&
1-- 0bid&, pp& *1$*2&
1-8 ;ndeed, it was on!1 on 9ctober 22, 1221 that this Court issued a
'eso!ution re.ardin. !ive te!evision and radio covera.e of hearin. of
cases& /his en banc 'eso!ution was brou.ht about the !ive covera.e of the
hearin. of the !ibe! case fi!ed b1 then >resident ?uino a.ainst newspaper
co!umnist 4uis Be!tran& /he testimon1 of >res& ?uino as comp!ainant was
fu!!1 carried on air b1 the media& /hen Con.ressman rt BorDa! ca!!ed the
attention of this Court to the possib!e eAcessiveness and impropriet1 of
such covera.e& 8orthwith, the Court issued the 9ctober 22, 1221
'eso!ution proscribin. the !ive radio and te!evision covera.e of court
proceedin.s& Eideo foota.e of hearin.s for news purposes was to be taBen
prior to the commencement of the tria! proper&
1-2 /S), u.ust 2-, 1221, pp& 2*$10=&
180 Supra&
181 /S), ,u!1 1=, 1222, pp& *$11, 16$1-&
182 /S), u.ust 1=, 1222, p& 1+&
18+ /S), September 8, 1222, p& 11&
18= /S), September 10, 1222, p& 8&
18* 9rder dated 0a1 22, 1222, 9ri.ina! 'ecords, pp& *60$*6+&
186 4n Banc 'eso!ution, dated ,une 16, 1222, &0& )o& 21$6$*08$ '/C,
9ri.ina! 'ecords, p& *6=&
18- >eop!e v& Supremo, %&'& )o& 10021*, 0a1 +1, 122*, citing >eop!e v&
'amireF, %&'& )os& 80-=-$=8, 9ctober 1-, 1221, 20+ SC' 2*, +6@
>eop!e v& /u.bo, ,r&, %&'& )o& -*82=, pri! 22, 1221, 126 SC' 1++@
>eop!e v& /umaob, )o&
4$2+00, 0a1 2-, 12=2, 8+ >hi!& -+8&
188 Decision, Rollo, at pp& --$-8&
182 %&'& )o& 4$2*21+, 8ebruar1 28, 1262, 2- SC' +2-&
120 s per the po!ic1 adopted b1 the Court en banc on u.ust +0, 1220,
the amount of civi! indemnit1 for death caused b1 a crime has been
increased to >*0,000,00@ >eop!e v& SaFon, %&'& )o& 8268=, September 18,
1220, 182 SC' -00, -1=&
121 (eirs of 'a1mundo Castro v& Bustos, supra, at pp& ++2$++*&
122 rt& 2206& /he amount of dama.es for death caused b1 a crime & & &
sha!! be at !east "fift1 thousand pesos, under current Durisprudence# & & & ;n
addition5
AAA AAA AAA
"+# /he spouse, !e.itimate or i!!e.itimate descendants and ascendants of
the deceased ma1 demand mora! dama.es for menta! an.uish b1 reason of
the death of the deceased&
12+ /S), 9ctober =, 1221, pp& 21$2*@ /S), ,u!1 22, 1222, p& 62&
12= rt& 2222& 7Aemp!ar1 or corrective dama.es are imposed, b1 wa1 of
eAamp!e or correction for the pub!ic .ood, in addition to the mora!,
temperate, !i?uidated or compensator1 dama.es&
12* Supra&
126 /S), 9ctober =, 1221, pp& 68$-0, -6 U -8@ /S), u.ust 1=, 1221, p&
=6&
12- /S), 9ctober =, 1221, p& -2&
128 Supra&
122 )o& 4$110+-, December 22, 1260, 110 >hi! +=6&
200 /S), 9ctober =, 1221, pp& +6$+8&
201 s per 6a.e 9rder )os& )C'$02 and 02$, effective ,anuar1 8, 1221&
202 :sin. the e?uation5 7?uiva!ent 0onth!1 'ate P pp!icab!e Dai!1 'ate
A +6* divided b1 12@ See nneA 33C of 'u!es ;mp!ementin. 6a.e 9rders
)os, )C'$02 and )C'$02$, ,anuar1 8, 1221& /hus5
7?uiva!ent 0onth!1 'ate P >118&00 A +6*
QQQQQQ
12
P >+,*82&1-
6ith a!!owance for the re?uirement of at !east one "1# month sa!ar1 as
1+th month pa1, the .ross income per annum wou!d amount to
>=6,6*2&1-&
20+ >hi!ippine ir!ines, ;nc& v& Court of ppea!s, %&'& )o& *==-0, 0a1 8,
1220, 18* SC' 110@ 0onFon v& ;ntermediate ppe!!ate Court, %&'& )o&
-2828, ,anuar1 +1, 1282, 162 SC' -60@ Davi!a v& >hi!ippine ir!ines,
)o& 4$28*12, 8ebruar1 28, 12-+, =2 SC' =2-@ Ei!!a 'e1 /ransit, ;nc& v&
Court of ppea!s, )o&
4$2*=22, 8ebruar1 18, 12-0, +1 SC' *11&
20= >eop!e v& !vero, ,r&, %&'& )o& -2+12, ,une +0, 122+, 22= SC' 16&
20* >hi!ippine ir!ines, ;nc& v& Court of ppea!s, %&'& )o& *==-0, 0a1 8,
1220, 18* SC' 110, 121, citing Davi!a v& >hi!ippine ir!ines, )o& 4$
28*12, 8ebruar1 28, 12-+, =2 SC' =2-&
206 0otion to ;nhibit >residin. ,ud.e and 9rder of ;nhibition, dm&
0atter )o&
21$6$*08$'/C, 9ri.ina! 'ecords, at p& *6=@ and, >etition for Certiorari
re!ative to the conduct of another pre!iminar1 investi.ation for the
mended ;nformation for 0urder for the supervenin. death of 0aureen
(u!tman, %&'& )o& 10+102, 0arch 6, 1222, 20- SC' 1+=, 9ri.ina!
'ecords, pp& +22$++6&
20- ppe!!ant himse!f presented more than twent1 "20# witnesses&
208 /S), u.ust 2, 1221, pp& +*$+6&
202 0bid&, pp& -6$82&
210 /S), u.ust 1=, 1221, pp& *$8&
211 9ri.ina! 'ecords, at p& -=+&
212 0bid&, pp& 282$1000&
21+ 9ri.ina! 'ecords, pp& 282$1001&