Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53019:gr-178543-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:49:43+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ARISTO VILLANUEVA, Appellant.
From the March 30, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the February 4, 2004 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City (Branch 46) finding him guilty of murder, Aristo Villanueva (appellant) lodged the present appeal.
That on or about 7:00 o' clock [sic] in the morning of October 17, 2001 at Brgy. San Juan, San Manuel, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring together, armed and with the use of unlicensed firearms, with intent to kill, treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot JANAIRO MAGCALAS inflicting upon him multiple gunshot wounds which caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
Upon the other hand, appellant, who denied being acquainted with Marina and Mercedita as well as with the victim, invoked alibi, claiming that he was on the day of the incident, October 17, 2001, in Cahil, Diffun, Quirino helping his uncle at the farm; that he left Quirino for San Manuel on December 18, 2001 and was arrested and detained by the San Manuel police the next day11 in connection with the killing of a certain Saribay; that while on detention or in the second week of January 2002 Marina visited him;12 and that he was released from detention in April 2002 following the dismissal of the case against him in connection with the killing of Saribay.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused ARISTO "ARIS" VILLANUEVA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder of JANARIO MAGCALAS. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of Janario Magcalas (a)P12,990.00 in actual damages; (b) P50,000.00 death indemnity; and (c) P50,000.00 in moral damages.
The trial court ruled out the presence of the aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm, however, the same not having been established by the prosecution.
The Court of Appeals, by Decision16 of March 30, 2007, affirmed with modification appellant's conviction by awarding exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 due to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery.
In the present appeal, appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to discharge its primary burden by overwhelming evidence. Citing People v. Contega,17 he contends that "the rule that alibi must be satisfactorily proved was never intended to change the burden of proof in criminal cases; otherwise, we w[ould] see the absurdity of an accused being out in a more difficult position where the prosecution's evidence is vague and weak than where it is strong."
In the present case, the Court entertains doubts on the identification, more than three (3) months after the incident, by prosecution witnesses Marina and Mercedita, of appellant as one of two men who fatally shot the victim. Nothing on record sufficiently explains why Marina and Mercedita, who claimed to be familiar with appellant, failed to immediately name him as one of the assailants when SPO3 Pascua inquired from them if they recognized the "assailant."
Marina, in fact even went to the Balungao District Jail, in the company of a certain Nel Ramos, a week after her husband's death in October 2001 purportedly to identify appellant, then on detention there, as one of the assailants. But despite that, she did not inform the police of appellant's involvement in her husband's killing, until after more than three months.
Consider Marina's following account, quoted verbatim, surrounding the delay.
A I did not see him sir.
We would like to put on the record that she (witness) hardly answer the question for a yes or no. She hard times to answer the question, your Honor.
Q And somebody pointed to you, right?
Q If you love your husband why did it take you four (4) months from October 17 to report/identify the assailant. Why did it take you for some time?
A Because I newly gave birth that time and we are poor, sir.
A Somebody helped us which is why I was given the nerve to report the matter, sir.
A Because we are threatened sir.
A There were times gunshot and motorcycle used to stop in front of our house, sir.
A Because we reported to the San Manuel Police and nothing happened, sir.
A At the time when my husband died, sir.
A I don't want to talk this time because I m afraid, sir.
Q And you did not tell the Police that it was Aris Villanueva and Rodrigo Malong who shot your husband?
Q And it was very emphatic that you did not recognize who shot your husband?
A None sir, but I just pointed to him.
Q You did not go and accused him for killing your husband?
A More than a week, sir.
Q Why, do you know the reason why you and Ombudsman Ramos went to the Balungao District Jail?
A To identify whether he was really the one who shot my husband, sir.
Q Who told you to identify?
Why Marina had to visit appellant, to whom she claimed to be familiar, in jail, in order to be able to point to him as one of the culprits underscores the fact that either she was not at all familiar with appellant or she did not really see who shot her husband. For, if she really saw and recognized or was familiar with appellant, there would have been no need for her to see him while in detention in order to identify him. In fact, that even after seeing appellant at the jail a week or more after the shooting she still failed to complain against him but waited for about three (3) months reinforces the doubt on her claim that it was he who was one of two who shot her husband.
A Because if we go to the police of San Manuel they do not mind us there, sir.
A Two (2) times, sir.
A He did not investigate me.
A Pascua just said, "Who is that who really did that?"
A "This is what happened," I said.
A When the cadaver arrived coming from the hospital, I told Pascua, "This is what happened," and Pascua did not say anything.
Q Did you tell Pascua that it was Aris Villanueva and Rodrigo Malong that shot your son?
Q What did you mean by not yet, did you finally tell him?
A No, sir, because our minds were not still in order.
Q After recovering from that state of mind of yours, did you go back to Pascua and tell him what happened?
A No, sir, when they examined the cadaver of Janario, Pascua did not get near.
A Yes, sir, first was when Janario died and second was when I went there and they did not mind us.
As indicated in the earlier-quoted testimony of Marina, she claimed that she did not have the "nerve" to tell the police that she recognized appellant as one of her husband's killer as "we [were] threatened," explaining that "[t]here were times gunshot and motorcycle used to stop infront of our house." While threats have been held to be valid grounds to explain the delay in identifying the assailants, there is no showing in the present case if those claimed bases of the threats were real, and if they were, who lodged them and for what.
At all events, Marina and Mercedita gave differing explanations why it took some time for them to name appellant. Thus, Marina banked on her having just given birth. But she was two months shy of delivery at the time of the incident. Whereas Mercedita blamed the ensuing confusion (their "minds were still not in order").
The indifference attributed by Marina to the San Manuel Police in solving the crime thus appears to be a mere subterfuge, given that the records reflect the assiduous investigation of the police in tracking the killers with the search reaching a dead-end due to lack of leads.
In fine, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant. The burden of evidence did not thus shift to appellant, rendering it unnecessary to pass on his alibi.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, appellant, Aristo Villanueva, is ACQUITTED of murder.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City who is directed to forthwith cause the immediate release of appellant, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform the Court of action taken within 10 days.
2 Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), April 21, 2003, pp. 3-4.
3 TSN, April 23, 2003, p.4-5.
4 TSN, April 21, 2003. pp. 4-7.
6 TSN, January 8, 2003, pp. 11-14.
7 Id. at 22-23, 27.
8 Records, pp. 8-10; Exhibits "H" and "I."
9 TSN, April 21, 2003, pp. 6-7.
10 TSN, April 23, 2003, p. 8.
11 TSN, June 3, 2003, pp. 3-5.
13 Rollo, pp. 21-41; Penned by Judge Tita Rodriguez-Villarin.
14 G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640. Said case modified Sections 3 and 10 of Rule 122, Section 3 of Rule 125, Section 13 of Rule 134 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and any other rule insofar as they provide direct appeals from the RTC to this Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and allowed an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals before such cases are elevated to this Court.
15 Per Resolution dated September 8, 2004.
16 Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez Jr. and Vicente S.E. Veloso concurring.
17 G.R. No. 133579, May 31, 2000, 332 SCRA 730.
18 Rollo, pp. 123-146; Appellee's Brief.
19 People v. Arlalejo, G.R. No. 127841, June 16, 2000, 333 SCRA 604, 612, citing People v. Agsunod, Jr., 306 SCRA 612 (1999); People v. Reduca, 301 SCRA 516 (1999); and People v. Banela, 301 SCRA 84 (1999).
20 TSN, April 21, 2003, pp. 13-16.
22 TSN, April 23, 2003, pp. 22-24.
23 TSN, January 8, 2003, p. 24.
25 People v. Giganto Sr., G.R. No.123077, July 20, 2000, 336 SCRA 294, 305.

References: v. 
 v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.