Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=33864:g-r-nos-105000-01-november-22,-1993-people-of-the-phil-v-jose-monda,-jr&amp;catid=1308&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:59:55+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE MONDA, JR. y SAMPER and NESTOR BALBALOSA y RIVERA, Accused-Appellants.
1.	REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT, GENERALLY RESPECTED; EXCEPTION. — While it is a judicial dictum that the Court will accord great respect, if not finality, to the trial court’s appreciation of the credibility of witnesses, the same holds true only if there had been no misapprehension of facts and only if the court a quo did not overlook certain points of substance which, if considered, could alter the result arrived at. The Court will not hesitate, on justifiable grounds, to take exception to the rule on finality of the trial court’s factual findings in order to keep faith with the immutable principle that every criminal conviction must be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
2.	ID.; ID.; JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE; NATURAL REACTION IN AMBUSCADES. — It is a matter of judicial cognizance that in ambuscades, not even a man with the quickest reflexes will tarry and bother to know who and where the sources of the danger were, except to respond to the instinct of self-preservation in the fastest manner possible, to secure one’s life by seeking cover or running for safety.
The victims in said case were P/Sgt. Victor W. Haber, Pfc. Francisco D. Lleno, Pfc. Mariano A. Noblefranca, Pfc. Jose A. Temperante, Pfc. Stephen Facistol, Pat. Oscar D. Benedicto, Firemen Federico P. Mendoza and Marvin Marchan, all members of the Integrated National Police (INP) at Buhi, Camarines Sur, and Bonifacio Fabillar, a civilian.
It is beyond cavil that the victims died of gunshot wounds inflicted on different parts of their bodies as a consequence of the ambush-slaying by approximately sixty heavily armed men at Sitio Tastas, Barangay Labawon, Buhi, Camarines Sur. 10 Patrolmen Jose M. Merilles, Gil Eusebio and Pelagio Oatemar, Jr. survived the carnage and, as eyewitnesses, related the chronology of events which culminated in the conviction of herein appellants.
As earlier narrated, at around 11:30 A.M. while the team was on its way to Bgy. Macaangay, they were ambushed by around sixty heavily armed men at Sitio Tastas, Bgy. Labawon, Buhi, Camarines Sur, resulting in the death of some of its members. Patrolmen Eusebio and Oatemar were wounded, while Merilles escaped unhurt. After less than five minutes of the assault, Merilles, who had taken cover in a canal, ran away from the ambush scene. About twenty-five minutes later, he met the first group of reinforcements from the San Vicente Assistance Center composed of around ten soldiers who, upon arriving at the area, realized that they were insufficient in number, whereupon five of them withdrew to seek more assistance.
Three days later, while Oaferina, CIC Juan P. Iglopas and Sgt. Castroverde were manning a checkpoint at the San Vicente Assistance Center, they arrested two persons whom they suspected to be two of the ambushers and they brought them to the Buhi Police Station for investigation. 14 These were the herein appellants.
After a meticulous review and scrupulous evaluation of the entire records of this case, the mind and conscience of the Court cannot rest easy on the identification of appellants as among the slayers of the victims of the ambuscade. A searching scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses will expose the badges of unreliability therein which correspondingly create the element of reasonable doubt that, in turn, dictates a verdict of acquittal.
Merilles could not have accurately ascertained the identity of the assailants since he himself admitted that, after the first barrage of gunshots, some of his companions were instantly killed and he immediately hid himself by taking cover in a nearby canal. Not long thereafter, he ran away from the scene of the ambush until he met the first group of reinforcements. Together with this batch, he went back and a continuous exchange of gunfire transpired until, one by one, the ambushers fled and made it difficult for the reinforcers to overtake them.
He likewise could not have identified appellants at the time of the ambush since the latter were then taking cover under the shadow of trees and hiding behind the coconut trunks, exerting every effort to show as little of their bodies as possible, so as not to expose themselves and their identities to their opponents. 34 These are protective human reactions normally resorted to and which ordinary experience will confirm.
It bears stressing that when the ambush was just a few minutes old, Pat. Eusebio was hit on the left hand and left shoulder and he fell unconscious. 35 When he came to, it was not shown whether he had the opportunity to have a second look at his assailants. What was clear, though, was that the ambushers fled when the reinforcements came. 36 Moreover, the attackers were on a higher part of the terrain, six to seven feet above the government forces, and were thereafter able to position themselves around the hapless victims. 37 These events took place in rapid succession and, just like Merilles, Eusebio was too absorbed in taking cover and running for his safety to be able to carefully observe and scrutinize their adversaries, much less the individual members thereof.
Without the positive identification of appellants as among the perpetrators of the crimes charged, the constitutional presumption of innocence in their favor stands unrebutted. 39 Moreover, with the failure and absence of their positive identification by the prosecution, appellant’s motive, if any, to commit the crimes assumes significant importance. Motive becomes essential when there is doubt as to the identity of the assailants. 40 In the case now before us, the People miserably failed to adduce evidence as to appellant’s possible evil motives against the victims which could provide the reason for their slaying of the latter. In fact, not even the prosecution’s claim that appellants were members of the New People’s Army 41 was proven during the trial.
Of course, for alibi to prosper, appellants must prove physical impossibility, that is, that they could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time of its commission. 44 In the instant case, the defense has established to the satisfaction of the Court that it was physically impossible or, at the very least, highly improbable for appellants to be at the scene of the incident at the time of the ambuscade. They likewise sufficiently demonstrated that the distance between Bgy. Amogis in Polangui, Albay, where appellants were, and Sitio Tastas in Bgy. Labawon, Buhi, Camarines Sur, where the ambush transpired, is about twenty-five kilometers, and the travel time between these places is three hours by foot, 45 with no vehicle plying that route, 46 making it impossible for appellants to be there at 11:30 A.M., the time of the surprise attack. The testimonies of Rogelio Casococ, * Segunda Casais, and Rosita Balbalosa categorically established that appellant Monda was constructing a fence at the dancing hall located at Polangui, Albay from 9:00 to 11:30 A.M., then again from 1:00 to 3:00 P.M. on April 9, 1987, while appellant Balbalosa who was sick that day merely rested within the vicinity.
We do not here, for lack of clear showing, wish to categorically impute bad faith on the part of the authorities involved for the evidential gaucherie in this case. It may well be possible that the prosecution witnesses were misled by physical resemblances or were emotionally inclined to draw improvident conclusions in their resentment over the loss of their comrades. We nonetheless take this opportunity to condemn the practice of law enforcers who, failing in their mission to identify and apprehend the real malefactors, are not beyond picking on innocent parties as helpless scapegoats for their inefficiency and incompetence. The annals of criminal prosecutions in this and foreign jurisdictions are replete with miscarriages of justice due to erroneous identification of suspected offenders. It is the nadir of injustice where such miscarriage was not a product of honest error but of downright negligence or deliberate intent.
4.	TSN, May 11, 1988, 26.
8.	Ibid., 274; penned by Judge Ulysses V. Salvador.
9.	Rollo, 44; Brief for the Appellants, 1.
11.	TSN, May 11, 1988, 3-6.
12.	Ibid., id., 6-10, 13-16, 18-20.
13.	Ibid., October 17, 1988, 2, 10-13.
14.	Ibid., August 18, 1988, 2-10.
15.	Ibid., July 11, 1989, 2-7.
16.	Ibid., September 6, 1990, 16-18.
17.	Ibid., February 27, 1990, 3-6.
18.	Ibid., August 31, 1990, 2-6.
19.	Ibid., September 6, 1990, 3-4.
20.	People v. Martinez, Et Al., 205 SCRA 666 (1992).
21.	People v. Viray, Et Al., 202 SCRA 320 (1991).
22.	TSN, May 11, 1988, 10.
27.	Ibid., October 17, 1988, 18.
28.	Ibid., January 20, 1989, 8.
29.	Ibid., October 17, 1988, 19.
30.	Ibid., January 20, 1989, 11.
31.	Ibid., October 17, 1988, 20.
33.	Ibid., January 20, 1989, 8-9.
35.	Ibid., July 11, 1989, 4.
38.	People v. Somontao, 128 SCRA 415 (1984).
39.	People v. de la Cruz, Et Al., 200 SCRA 379 (1991).
40.	People v. Gadiana, 195 SCRA 211 (1991).
41.	TSN, August 18, 1988, 7; September 6, 1990, 19.
42.	People v. Salguero, 198 SCRA 357 (1991).
43.	People v. Fraga, Et Al., 109 Phil. 241 (1960); People v. Dilao, Et Al., 100 SCRA 358 (1980).
44.	People v. Cinco, Et Al., 194 SCRA 535 (1991).
45.	TSN, August 31, 1990, 6; September 6, 1990, 13.
47.	People v. Lagnas, Et Al., G.R. Nos. 102949-51, May 28, 1993.
48.	People v. Castelo, Et Al., 133 SCRA 667 (1984); People v. Martinez, 144 SCRA 303 (1986).
49.	People v. Gerones, Et Al., L-6595, October 29, (1954); Olandriz, Jr., Et. Al. v. People, Et Al., 152 SCRA 65 (1987).
50.	TSN, September 6, 1990, 20.
52.	Ibid., May 11, 1988, 25; January 20, 1989, 16.
53.	See People v. Veloso, 48 Phil. 169 (1925).

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.