452 Phil. 1026
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Michael Maguing GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Murder charged in the Information, as qualified by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and hereby sentences the accused to suffer the indivisible penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Crisanto Saul for the death of the latter the amounts of P50,000.00 x x x; actual damages of P41,000.00 for burial expenses; and moral damages of P100,000.00; and to pay the costs."[2]The Information[3] dated August 18, 1993, charged appellant in these words:
"That on or about the 12th day of August, 1993, in the Municipality of Cainta, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with a certain John Doe whose true [name] and whereabout[s] is unknown and mutually helping and aiding one another, both of them armed with guns, with intent to kill and by means of treachery did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully, feloniously shoot one Crisanto Saul thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wound which directly caused his death."[4]During his arraignment on February 8, 1994, appellant, with the assistance of his counsel de oficio,[5] pleaded not guilty to the charge.[6] After a trial on the merits, appellant was found guilty of murder.
"On August 12, 1993, around 11:30 p.m., spouses Crisanto and Evelyn Saul were in the house of the Jamias couple (Aniceto and Angelita) located at Block 29, Lot 28, Kabisig Floodway, Cainta, Rizal. With them were Honoria Ontanillas and Nestor Jamias. The group was talking animatedly concerning the deployment abroad of Honorio Ontanillas as well as Crisanto's deployment on the last week of that month of August. In the course of their conversation, two (2) masked intruders suddenly appeared from the door. One of the intruders pointed a gun at the temple of Crisanto — then a shot rang out. Crisanto slumped on the floor. Evelyn was shoved inside a room by Aniceto Jamias and a scuffle ensued between the second intruder and the rest of the group of the Jamiases. The second intruder was subdued. Evelyn vividly recalled that the gunman who shot her husband had the letter `M' tattooed between his thumb and forefinger.
"Post mortem examination conducted on the corpse of Crisanto Saul showed that the cause of his death was penetrating gunshot wound, left eye."[7] (Citations omitted)
"Accused Michael Maguing interposed the defense of alibi. He testified that on August 12, 1993, he together with a certain Alex, Tetet and Dante were in the house of his uncle, Reynaldo Tanco, doing some repair works. They started working at 8:00 o'clock in the morning and finished their job at 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon. Thereafter, they engaged in a drinking session until 7:30 in the evening. They then took their dinner and watched television. After his companions left, he stayed in the house of his uncle.
"The foregoing testimony of the accused was corroborated by Reynaldo Tanco and Alex Agustin."[8]
Simply stated, the main issue is the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence."I
The trial court erred in rendering a verdict of conviction despite the fact that the identification of the accused-appellant as the alleged perpetrator of the offense charged was not clear, positive and convincing."II
The trial court erred in giving credence to the incredible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in disregarding the evidence adduced by the accused-appellant which was corroborated on material points."III The trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime charged notwithstanding the fact that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt."IV
On the assumption that the accused-appellant is guilty, the trial court erred in convicting him of murder instead of homicide."[10]
On cross-examination, she candidly admitted that the gunman indeed had a mask on.
"Q: So, there were 5 persons present [on] x x x August [12] 1993 at 11:30 P.M.? A: Yes, [ma'am]. Q: What were you and your husband doing at the residence of Mrs. Angelita Jamias? A: We were talking because her cousin has just had a medical examination and he was about to leave on that coming Saturday while my husband [was] going to leave on the last week of August. Q: So, what this group, you and your husband and Mrs. Jamias and a brother of Mrs. Jamias and who else? A: Honorio. Q: Is he also with your group?
A: Yes, [ma'am]. Q: Cousin Honorio Ontanillas did anything unusual happen? A: While we were talking then suddenly entered two armed men. And they entered the house and one of them poked a gun to my husband. Q: How many person entered? A: Two (2), [ma'am]. ATTY. OLEDAN Q: Did they [enter] x x x to a door? A: Yes, [ma'am]. Q: And how did they enter, they just entered slowly or what?
A: They suddenly entered forcibly and then I just had transferred to the seat near my husband. x x x x x x x x xQ: So, you said the two armed men forcibly entered and immediately one proceeded, what did the one do? A: One of them entered through the other door because there were two doors. Q: Now, what did the one who entered the place where you were did? What did the one who entered exactly where you and your husband and the others were seated [did]? A: The man who entered through the door poked a gun to my husband's left temple while the other man entered to the other door. Q: Now when this man who poked a gun on the left side temple and pointed near the eyelid of your late husband what happen[ed]? A: I was pushed inside by Mr. Aniceto Jamias and when I was pushed inside there was already a shot.
Q: And did you know where did the shot come from? A: Yes, [ma'am]. Q: Where? A: When he entered there was already a shot. Q: Was it the same man who poked the gun who shot your husband? A: Yes, [ma'am]. Q: Aside from you, you said that Mr. Jamias pushed you in the room, is that true?
A: Yes, [ma'am]. Q: What about the others, what happened to them? A: They also went inside the room. Mr. Jamias, myself, my husband and the [gunmen] were the ones who were left. Q: So, what else happened after that? A: There was already a commotion while we were inside and I was trying to peep to see my husband if he was already dead and Mr. Jamias was able to wrestle from the other gunman the gun by self defense. Q: What happened to the gunman who shot your husband? A: There were shooting at the door, because they were trying to enter the room. x x x x x x x x xQ: Did you see the gunman who shot your husband? A : Yes, [ma'am]. Q : If he is around the courtroom, will you be able to identify him?
A: Yes, [ma'am]. Q: Will you please point him out. INTERPRETER: Witness pointing to a man inside the courtroom who when asked gave the name Michael Maguing. ATTY. OLEDAN: Q: Was there any particular mark this gunman have that you specifically can recall? A: He has a tattoo in his right hand with letter m. ATTY. OLEDAN: Your Honor, the accused has a tattoo on his right hand with letter m between his thumb and his forefinger."[16] (Italics supplied)
We note that Evelyn mentioned noticing the tattoo only during the "second time." By "second time" she meant August 16, 2002, when the followup investigation was conducted and her Sworn Testimony[18] executed. The initial investigation was conducted on August 13, 1993, or the day following the shooting incident.[19] During both investigations, particularly during a police lineup, she pointed to appellant as the killer. Surprisingly, she made no reference to any tattoo or identification mark on his person during either of these investigations. It was only in open court that she mentioned the tattoo for the first time.
"Q: After the crime took place you reported the matter to the police? A: After the incident police arrived and we were brought to the police station. Q: And you [told] the police about the incident that transpired on that day? A: Yes, [ma'am]. Q: What was your description of the accused? A: I stated that he has a mask on, he is a big man but I recall on the second time that he had [an] initial marked letter M in his hand."[17] (Italics supplied)
Upon inquiry from the trial court, Angelita affirmed her statements and categorically denied having seen the person who had shot the victim. She further testified thus:
"Q: And on the evening at 11:30, you said [that] there were persons who entered, who came in first? Were there [persons] who came first or they came in inside this [terrace] through that door?
A: They entered all at the same time at the side of the [terrace]. Q: You mean to say they entered all of the three? A: There is a gate in this sketch so they entered to this gate, 3 persons. x x x x x x x x xQ: What about the third person, where did he enter? A: He entered to the portion [of the] marked door. Q: Did you come to know who was this person who entered to this door? A: I did not [notice] him. Q: Did you come to know who he was?
A: I cannot recognize him. Q: Will you please look around the courtroom who is that person if he is around? A: Yes, sir. INTERPRETER: Witness is pointing to a person inside the courtroom who when asked x x x gave the name Michael Maguing. ATTY. OLEDAN: Witness pointed to the accused. Q: When the accused entered this door, what did he do? A: I did not exactly notice. Q: You mean to say he just entered, he did not do anything? A: I saw him entered but I did not see what he did but he entered inside."[26] (Italics supplied)
When the testimonies of key witnesses cannot cohere to form a positive depiction of the criminal act as well as its perpetrator, the inevitable conclusion is that one or more of them must be lying and merely concocting a story.[28]
"COURT:You did not see the victim from the very moment when he was shot? A:No, sir. Q:You did not know how the victim was shot? A:No, sir. Q:Neither do you know who shot him? A:No, sir. Q:Neither did you see who shot him? A:No, sir."[27] (Italics supplied)
"Inconsistencies on negligible details do not destroy the truth of a witness' testimony, so long as they refer only to collateral or incidental matters. But by no means can the inconsistencies and contradictions in Merdelyn's testimony be characterized as trivial or insignificant. Her propensity to make contradictory statements reflects her own uncertainty as to the actual events leading to her father's death. It is clear that she speaks not from memory or experience. She cannot even give a definite chronology of the events that transpired before her father was killed. We are convinced that she was simply fashioning her story and making spur-of-the-moment improvisations in an attempt to render her testimony credible. Instead of so doing, she exhibited a disposition to fabricate that makes her testimony unworthy of belief and credence."[30]By and large, the only piece of evidence linking appellant to the crime is the tattoo, which one of the eyewitnesses claimed was identical to the one she had seen on the assailant's right hand. As explained above, such testimony hardly serves as reliable basis for identifying the assailant. Thus, the trial court's conviction based on the uncorroborated claim of Evelyn Saul — that she recognized appellant as the assailant by the tattoo on his right hand — must be regarded as erroneous and set aside.
"While the defenses of denial and alibi are concededly weak, appellant's conviction cannot be based thereon. It is a well-settled doctrine that it is incumbent upon the prosecution to uphold the People's cause based on the strength of its own evidence on the guilt of the accused. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show to the court to the point of moral certainty that the accused indeed committed the offense charged. In the case at hand, the prosecution, armed with evidence secured by police investigators, failed to discharge its appointed task of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, by constitutional mandate, appellant deserves exoneration."[39]In our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is whether the court reasonably doubts, not the innocence, but the guilt of the accused.[40] Unless the identity of the culprit is established beyond reasonable doubt to the exclusion of all others, the charge must be dismissed on the ground that the constitutional presumption of innocence has not been overcome.[41] While proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty, it connotes that degree of proof which, after an investigation of the whole record, produces in an unprejudiced mind the moral certainty that the accused is culpable.[42]