Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
334
335
336
1
City of Tagbilaran, August 14, 1987.‰
_______________
337
_______________
338
Upon reaching the Center, the victim and his companions joined
three other members of their ÂbarkadaÊ watching the disco outside.
The victim and three of his friends were leaning against a concrete
post of the Center conversing and watching the Âdisco,Ê when all of a
sudden appellant appeared in front obliquely to the right of the
victim and fired three (3) successive shots at the latter, who
slumped and fell to the ground (pp. 2-7, tsn, July 6, 1988; pp. 2-5,
tsn, Nov. 11, 1988).
Thereafter, the people inside and outside the Center scampered
for safety (p. 7, tsn, July 6, 1988; p. 5, tsn, Nov. 11, 1988). However,
on his way to escape, appellant passed by the victimÊs brother
Edgardo and a companion who were then sitting on a bench about
60 meters away from the Center. When appellant got near the two,
the former poked his gun at the victimÊs brother, and uttered, ÂUnsa,
laban ka?Ê (What now, are you taking sides?Ê). The two remained
silent, as appellant ran behind a house and into the bushes when he
saw the Mayor approaching (pp. 1-3, tsn, June 26, 1990).
Meanwhile, the victimÊs sister Zeny, who was then inside the
Center, came to his (sic) brotherÊs rescue. With the help of other
people, she brought her brother to a hospital, but the latter expired
before arrival thereat (p. 9, tsn, July 6, 1988; pp. 8-9, tsn, Nov. 11,
1988).
Dr. Hector Enriquez, who conducted an examination on the
victimÊs cadaver, issued a Medico-Legal Report (Exhibit „A‰),
wherein he described the four (4) gunshot wounds sustained by the
victim. Although he found four (4) gunshot wounds on the victimÊs
body, Dr. Enriquez reported that it was possible that the victim was
shot at only three (3) times since the 4th wound on the right
forearm was through and through; hence, the same bullet may have
also caused the 2nd wound which penetrated the Âsubcostal margin,
midclavicular line, rightÊ (pp. 1-2, tsn, Feb. 24, 1978).
The doctor deduced that based in (sic) the locations of the
wounds, the assailant must have been in front obliquely to the right
of the victim when the former shot the latter. He also opined that
since he did not notice the presence of powder burns on the victim
and the downward trajectory of the bullets, the assailant must have
been more than two (2) feet away from, and taller or stood on a
higher level than the victim. Furthermore, of the four (4) wounds
sustained by the victim, he considered wound No. 1 along the Â7th
ICS, anterior axillary line, right,Ê and wound No. 2 penetrating the
Âsubcostal margin, mid-clavicular line, rightÊ as fatal, which caused
the victimÊs death (pp. 2-3, Ibid.).
Dr. Enriquez also recovered from the victimÊs body one (1) slug
(p. 3, Ibid.), which, when examined by the NBI Supervising
Ballistician of Region VII stationed at Cebu City, was found to have
been fired from a .38-caliber firearm, probably a homemade (paltik)
firearm, caliber .38 (pp. 1-3, tsn, August 23, 1988).
339
VOL. 221, APRIL 7, 1993 339
People vs. Jumamoy
_______________
340
fense must prove that it was impossible for him to be at the place at
the time of the commission because he was elsewhere during the
incident.
The records in this case will show that at the time of the
incident, at the time of the police investigation, during the
preliminary investigation before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
of Inabanga-Buenavista as well as in the trial proper, the accused
was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses.
It was established by the prosecution that the prosecution
witnesses and the accused knew and were familiar with each other
from the time they attained the age of reason because they lived in
adjacent barangays located in the same municipality. It was also
established by the prosecution that at the time of the incident there
were several ÂblinkingÊ dancing lights at the cultural center because
of the ongoing disco dance. In fact, there was another light·an
electric bulb of 25 watts·which was placed at the concrete post
where the victim and some of the prosecution witnesses were then
leaning against. That electric bulb was very near to the victim and
the accused at the time of the incident.
During the hearing proper as well as during the investigation
conducted by the police and before the municipal circuit trial court
during the preliminary investigation, all the prosecution
eyewitnesses pointed without hesitancy to the accused as the
murderer of the victim, and during the trial before this Court there
was not even one witness wavered of (sic) his identification of the
accused as the author of the crime.
To the mind of the Court, the accusedÊs evidence of alibi cannot
be believed, the same being clearly an afterthought or afterwit
because while the accused himself and his witness Manuelito Cajes
positively declared during the presentation of the defense evidence
in chief that it was on March 29, 1987 that they were on board MB
Roxan together from Buenavista, Bohol, to Cebu City, the owner of
the MB Roxan, Engr. Leandro Tirol, however, declared on rebuttal
that it was impossible for the accused to have boarded on the said
vessel on March 29, 1987, that date being a Sunday and that MB
Roxan did not have any voyage from Buenavista, Bohol, to Cebu
City on that date because it was not legally authorized to do so. So
that on surrebuttal, the accused conveniently changed the date
9
March 29, 1987 to probably March 30, 1987.‰
10
Accused thus appeals the said judgment of conviction and
in
_______________
341
„I
II
_______________
342
same witness declared that he did not actually see the firearm.
What he saw was the sparkling lights that came out from the barrel
of the firearm after it was fired (Page 4, TSN, August 24, 1988). If
the witness saw the sparks, then the place must be dark. Alfredo
Alforque, one of the prosecution witnesses who claimed to have seen
the shooting, made the following doubtful testimonies (sic):
_______________
343
_______________
344
_______________
345
_______________
346
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Jumamoy
_______________
21 People vs. Mercado, 97 SCRA 232 [1980]; People vs. Clores, 184
SCRA 638 [1990]; People vs. Arceo, 187 SCRA 265 [1990]; People vs.
Beringuel, 19? SCRA 561 [1990].
22 TSN, 9 July 1990, 1-2.
347
_______________
348
_______________
26 People vs. Mobe, 81 Phil. 58 [1948]; People vs. Pilones, 84 SCRA 167
[1978]; People vs. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459 [1991]; People vs. Penillos, 205
SCRA 546 [1992].
349