18. JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE vs. HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA et.

al need of such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with
existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may
FACTS: be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of
Jose Antonio C. Leviste (petitioner) assails via the present petition for review filed on May the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.
30, 2008 the August 30, 2007 Decision1 and the April 18, 2008 Resolution2 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97761 that affirmed the trial court’s Orders of January 24, 31, Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary
February 7, 8, all in 2007, and denied the motion for reconsideration, respectively. investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel.
The petitioner was charged with homicide for the death of a certain Rafael de las Alas. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated
Thereafter, Judge Elmo Alameda of RTC Makati issued a commitment order against the within fifteen (15) days from its inception.
petitioner who was placed under police custody while confined in the hospital.
After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary investigation, the
The petitioner posted a 40,000 worth of bail which was then approved by the trial court. accused may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary
However, the Heirs of de las Alas filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion for the deferment of the investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule.
proceedings to allow the public prosecutor to re-examine the evidence on record or to A preliminary investigation is required before the filing of a complaint or information for an
conduct a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense. The latter was affirmed by the offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one day
court, in its January 24, 2007 ruling. The petitioner moved for reconsideration but was without regard to fine. As an exception, the rules provide that there is no need for a
denied in January 31, 2007. preliminary investigation in cases of a lawful arrest without a warrant involving such type of
offense, so long as an inquest, where available, has been conducted.
Meantime, petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion before the trial court
to defer acting on the public prosecutor’s recommendation on the proper offense until after Inquest is defined as an informal and summary investigation conducted by a public
the appellate court resolves his application for injunctive reliefs, or alternatively, to grant him prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons arrested and detained without the benefit of
time to comment on the prosecutor’s recommendation and thereafter set a hearing for the a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether said persons
judicial determination of probable cause.10 Petitioner also separately moved for the inhibition should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court.
of Judge Alameda with prayer to defer action on the admission of the Amended Information.
It is imperative to first take a closer look at the predicament of both the arrested person and
The trial court nonetheless issued the other assailed orders, viz: (1) Order of February 7, the private complainant during the brief period of inquest, to grasp the respective remedies
200712 that admitted the Amended Information13 for murder and directed the issuance of a available to them before and after the filing of a complaint or information in court.
warrant of arrest; and (2) Order of February 8, 200714 which set the arraignment on
February 13, 2007. Petitioner questioned these two orders via supplemental petition before Contrary to petitioner’s position that private complainant should have appealed to the DOJ
the appellate court. The appellate court dismissed petitioner’s petition, hence, this petition. Secretary, such remedy is not immediately available in cases subject of inquest.

ISSUE: Whether Judge Alameda acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting such Noteworthy is the proviso that the appeal to the DOJ Secretary is by "petition by a proper
reinvestigation without basis in the rules of court. party under such rules as the Department of Justice may prescribe." The rule referred to is
the 2000 National Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal, Section 1 of which provides that the
RULING: Rule shall "apply to appeals from resolutions x x x in cases subject of preliminary
No, Judge Alameda did not act with grave abuse of discretion in granting such investigation/ reinvestigation." In cases subject of inquest, therefore, the private party
reinvestigation. Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court reads: should first avail of a preliminary investigation or reinvestigation, if any, before elevating the
matter to the DOJ Secretary.
When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a In case the inquest proceedings yield no probable cause, the private complainant may
preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without pursue the case through the regular course of a preliminary investigation.
ONCE A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IS FILED IN COURT, the rules yet provide the
accused with another opportunity to ask for a preliminary investigation within five days from
the time he learns of its filing. The Rules of Court and the New Rules on Inquest are silent,
however, on whether the private complainant could invoke, as respondent heirs of the
victim did in the present case, a similar right to ask for a reinvestigation.

The rule is now well settled that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any
disposition of the case, whether as to its dismissal or the conviction or the acquittal of the
accused, rests in the sound discretion of the court. Although the prosecutor retains the
direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even when the case is already in
court, he cannot impose his opinion upon the tribunal. For while it is true that the prosecutor
has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed
in court, once the case had already been brought therein any disposition the prosecutor
may deem proper thereafter should be addressed to the court for its consideration and
approval. The only qualification is that the action of the court must not impair the substantial
rights of the accused or the right of the People to due process of law.

In such an instance, before a re-investigation of the case may be conducted by the public

prosecutor, the permission or consent of the court must be secured. If after such re-
investigation the prosecution finds a cogent basis to withdraw the information or otherwise
cause the dismissal of the case, such proposed course of action may be taken but shall
likewise be addressed to the sound discretion of the court.

19. DIONISIO C. LADIGNON v. COURT OF APPEALS and LUZVIMINDA C. DIMAUN

FACTS: It is also worth stressing that private respondent claimed that her signature on the subject
The case originates from a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Conveyance and Deed of Absolute Sale is forged. As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be
Recovery of Possession and Damages filed by a private respondent against Richard C. proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party
Tong, Jose Porciuncula, Jr. and Litogo Company, Inc. in 1990. In the Complaint, private alleging forgery.
respondent alleged that petitioner, a relative by affinity, offered his services as lawyer to
mediate between her and the relatives of her adoptive mother with respect to inheritance In the case at bar, the court cannot accept the claim of forgery where no comparison of
she was expecting to receive from her adoptive parents. private respondent’s signatures was made, no witness (save for private respondent herself)
was presented to testify on the same, much less an expert witness called, and all that was
Private respondent claimed that petitioner made her sign a Petition for the reconstitution of presented was private respondent’s testimony that her signature on the questioned Deed
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 240724, covering a parcel of land located in Talayan, was forged. Indeed, even when the evidence is conflicting, the public document must still be
Quezon City, registered under her name and that of her adoptive mother, Ligaya Flores upheld.
Collantes. Attached to private respondent’s Complaint was a copy of Deed of Absolute Sale
which appears to have been executed by her as a vendor and by Litoco Co., Inc., All told, the court finds that private respondent, who has filed the Complaint for nullity of
represented by its President, Richard Tong, as vendee. conveyance has not sufficiently met the burden of proof to sustain her case and for such a
reason and must reinstate the dismissal of her complaint as ordered by the court.
Private respondent denied having received the purchase price, nor having signed the same,
insisting that her alleged signatures thereon are falsified or forged. Thus, she prayed for the The petition for review is granted. Court of Appeal’s decision is reversed and RTC’s
declaration of nullity of the said Deed of Absolute Sale and for the defendants to be ordered decision is reinstated.
to surrender possession of the lot covered. The trial court found the evidence submitted by
private respondent as insufficient to overturn the public document sought to be annulled.
Thus, a Decision was rendered on May 20, 1992, in favor of petitioner.

However, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, hence, the instant petition
for review.

ISSUE:
Does the evidence presented by private respondent against the Deed of Absolute Sale
clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant to overcome both the presumption of
regularity attached to public documents and to meet the stringent requirements to prove
forgery?

HELD:
It does not. We note that the Deed of Absolute Sale being questioned is a public document,
having been notarized by Atty. Elsa R. Reblora who appeared on the witness stand to
testify on the due execution of the same.

As a public document, the subject Deed of Absolute Sale had in its favor the presumption of
regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and
more than merely preponderant; otherwise the document should be upheld.

20. MAGUDDATU VS. COURT OF APPEALS

 custody of the law, or otherwise, deprived of liberty. The purpose of bail is to secure one’s
FACTS: release and it would be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free. Petitioners’
Aniceto Sabbun Maguddatu and Laureana Sabbun Maguddatu, Atty. Teodoro Rubino, Compliance and Motion came short of an unconditional submission to respondent court’s
Antonio Sabbun Maguddatu and several other “John Does” were charged with murder lawful order and to its jurisdiction. The trial court correctly denied petitioners’ motion that
before the Regional Trial Court of Makati for the killing of Jose S. Pascual. Petitioners filed they be allowed provisional liberty after their conviction, under their respective bail bonds.
a motion to be admitted to bail on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence is not strong. Apart from the fact that they were at large, Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, as
After partial trial on the merits, the trial court issued an order granting petitioner’s motion for amended by Supreme Court Administrative Circular 12-94, provides that:
bail and fixing the amount at P30,000.00 each. On the same day, petitioners posted bail
through AFISCO Insurance Corporation. The Court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to continue on provisional liberty under
the same bail bond during the period to appeal subject to the consent of the bondsman.
Then, the AFISCO Insurance Corporation filed a motion before the trial court praying for the
cancellation of petitioner’s bail bond because of the latter’s failure to renew the same upon The bail bond that the accused previously posted can only be used during the 15-day
its expiration on December 20, 1986. There is no showing, however, of any action by the period to appeal (Rule 122) and not during the entire period of appeal.
court on said motion. The trial court convicted petitioners of the crime of Homicide and
sentenced them to suffer an indeterminate prison term of EIGHT (8) YEARS to FOURTEEN From the records of the case, petitioners are not entitled to bail. Firstly, petitioners violated
(14) YEARS of RECLUSION TEMPORAL. The judgment of conviction was promulgated in the conditions of their bail. Bail is defined as a security for the release of a person
absentia. conditioned upon his appearance before any court. The accused shall also appear before
the proper court whenever so required by the court or these Rules. Petitioners’ non-
Accordingly, the trial court issued an order for the immediate arrest of petitioners and their appearance during the promulgation of the trial court’s decision despite due notice and
commitment to the custody of proper authorities. While remaining at large, petitioner filed a without justifiable reason, and their continued non-submission to the proper authorities as
Notice of Appeal from the order of conviction for homicide with a motion to be granted ordered by the Court of Appeals, constitute violations of the conditions of their bail.
provisional liberty under the same bail bond pending appeal. Moreover, it appears that petitioners failed to renew their expired bail bond, as shown by a
Motion, dated January 06, 1987, filed by AFISCO Insurance Corporation, praying for the
The Court of Appeals issued the resolution under question denying petitioners’ application cancellation of petitioners’ bail bond because of the latter’s failure to renew the same upon
for bail and ordering their arrest. Aggrieved by the foregoing resolution, petitioners brought its expiration. The petitioners complain that they were not informed of the date of
the instant petition for certiorari with this Court contending that the Court of Appeals promulgation of the decision of conviction in the trial court and that their counsel of record
committed grave abuse of discretion in denying their application for bail and their prayer to abandoned them. Even if the Court were to concede that these allegations are true,
recall the order of arrest issued by the trial court. petitioners still failed to surrender to the authorities despite two orders to that effect by the
Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether under the facts thereof petitioners are entitled to bail as a matter of right or on the Moreover, petitioners had no cause to expect that their application for bail would be granted
discretion of the trial court? Assuming it is a matter of discretion, whether the trial court in as a matter of course precisely because it is a matter of discretion. In fact, the filing of a
denying bail committed grave abuse of discretion? notice of appeal effectively deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion for
RULING: bail pending appeal because appeal is perfected by the mere filing of such notice. It has
The Court of Appeals committed no error in denying petitioners’ plea to be granted bail. The been held that trial courts would be well advised to leave the matter of bail, after conviction
Constitution guarantees the right to bail of all the accused except those charged with for a lesser crime than the capital offense originally charged, to the appellate court’s sound
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong. discretion.

This was stated in Sections 4, 5 and 7 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. Despite an order
of arrest from the trial court and two warnings from the Court of Appeals, petitioners had 21. LANIE CERVANTES v. JUDGE HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN and CLERK OF COURT
remained at large. It is axiomatic that for one to be entitled to bail, he should be in the III CARMENCHITA P. BALOCO
 ISSUE: Whether bail is required for those cases fall under Revised Rule on Summary
The requirement to post bail is no longer necessary under the Revised Rule on Summary procedure.
Procedure; Bail is not generally required for violation of municipal or city ordinances and for
criminal offenses when the prescribed penalty is not higher than arresto mayor or fine of RULING:
P2,000 or both. CASE ORIGINATED IN RTC Palawan. NO. In Agunday v. Judge Tresvalles,22 the Court noted that the requirement to post bail is
no longer necessary under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
FACTS: Further, in Martinez, Sr. v. Judge Paguio, the Court observed that under Republic Act No.
Respondent Judge Pangilinan issued on December 5, 2001 a warrant of arrest in a criminal 6036, bail is not generally required for violation of municipal or city ordinances, and for
case for Slander against the therein accused-herein complainant who subsequently posted criminal offenses when the prescribed penalty is not higher than arresto mayor or fine of
bail fixed at P2, 000. On arraignment on December 18, 2001, complainant pleaded not P2,000 or both, as in the case for Slander against complainant which is covered by Art. 358
guilty. She later filed on January 22, 2002 a Motion to Admit Counter-Affidavit with her of the Revised Penal Code.
Ganting Salaysay (Motion). Respondent Clerk of Court Carmenchita refused to accept the
Motion, however, in the absence of Judge Pangilinan, being apprehensive that he might In this case, respondent judge manifested a lack of mastery of the provision of the 1991
scold her. On June 28, 2002, as instructed by Carmenchita, complainant returned during Rules on Summary Procedure. Judge Pangilinan issued a Warrant of Arrest against Lanie
which Carmenchita told her not to see the judge that day as he was still tired from his trip. Cervantes, fixing the bond of the accused in the amount of Php 2,000.00. The requirement
The following day or on January 29, 2002, Judge Pangilinan advised complainant that he for the accused to post bail is part of the regular procedure, not the Revised Rules on
could not accept her belatedly filed Motion because she had already been arraigned. Summary Procedure.

Judge Pangilinan justified the non-receipt of complainant’s motion for lack of proper proof of The proceedings in a criminal case for Slander are governed by the Revised Rule on
service, and complainant, instead of heeding the advice to comply therewith, went to Puerto Summary Procedure, the pertinent provisions of which read:
Princesa City to air her grievance over a local radio station.
SEC. 2. Determination of applicability. — Upon the filing of a civil or criminal action, the
By Order of January 4, 2008, Judge Pe came up with the following evaluation: “This matter court shall issue an order declaring whether or not the case shall be governed by this Rule.
could not have gone this far had the respondent Judge Heriberto Pangilinan diligently
observed the Rules on Summary Procedure in criminal cases. The case of simple slander is SEC. 16. Arrest of accused. — The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except
punishable by arresto menor with a fine of not more than P200.00 which is covered by the for failure to appear whenever required. Release of the person arrested shall either be on
Rules of Summary Procedure. Warrant of Arrest should not have been issued against Lanie bail or on recognizance by a responsible citizen acceptable to the court.”
Cervantes which fact during the cross-examination was admitted by respondent judge to be
lapses of judgment. He could have ordered Lanie Cervantes to file her Counter Affidavit Instead of first ruling whether the case fell under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure,
within ten (10) days as provided by [t]he Rules before arraignment. What the respondent Judge Pangilinan immediately issued a warrant of arrest and fixed complainant’s bail at
judge did in this case was that the accused was caused to be arraigned without ordering P2,000. There being no showing that complainant failed to appear in court when required
her to file her Counter-Affidavit which later when Lanie Cervantes had known that she could by Judge Pangilinan, the warrant of arrest he issued had no legal basis.
not put up her defense without a Counter Affidavit in Summary Procedure, she filed that
Counter-Affidavit with the motion to admit the same. Had the motion been admitted, then 22. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILFREDO CAWALING
this administrative case could not have reached this far.
We are confronted with conflicting accounts of the commission of a crime, a reverse
On the part of respondent Baloco, her appointment in court is stenographer reporter and whodunit1 rivaling the murder mysteries of Agatha Christie, in this review of the Court of
she was just designated as acting clerk of court by the Honorable Judge Pangilinan. She Appeals’ (CA’s) conviction of accused Wilfredo Cawaling for murder and imposing on him
was instructed by the honorable judge not to receive any pleading without proof of service the penalty of reclusion perpetua.2 However, unlike Agatha Christie, we are guided by the
to the party to which she complied in this case. test of moral certainty in ascertaining the guilt of the accused.
This legal poser arose because, after the prosecution presented an eyewitness to the crime
pointing to Cawaling as the perpetrator thereof, the defense offered the testimony of a xxx
person, initially charged with Cawaling in the same Information and who previously pled not
guilty to the crime, confessing that it was he, and not Cawaling, who murdered the victim. EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

Even the two courts below us parleyed and rendered conflicting decisions. The Regional The Prosecution presented three (3) witnesses.
Trial Court (RTC) partially upheld the defense’s version of the events, rejected the
prosecution’s eyewitness account of the murder and convicted Cawaling only as an Rommel Brigido, 29 years old, married and a resident of Busay, San Jose, Romblon,
accomplice to the offense of homicide. In stark contrast, the CA found the eyewitness’ testified as follows:
testimony credible and convicted Cawaling of murder.
That witness was with the accused Wilfredo and Palti in coming from the town of San Jose
The following are the long and arduous facts, seen and appreciated from two different to barangay Busay.
perspectives by the lower courts.
That they passed by the house of Porferio Bina where they drank the locally fermented
Cawaling was charged with Murder in an Information which reads: "tuba."

That on or about the 19th day of April, 1987, in sitio Hinulugan, barangay Agcogon, Later, he saw accused Wilfredo sitting on a bench under the "talisay" tree on the other side
municipality of San Jose, province of Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this of the road.
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, conspired and confederated
with Palti Umambong whose case was already dismissed after arraignment, did then and Thereafter, he saw Leodegario, Gloria, Roberto and Leon passing by the road. When
there by means of treachery, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shot Leodegario got near the bench where Wilfredo was seated, the latter suddenly stood up
with a firearm the late ex-vice mayor Leodegario Capispisan, inflicting upon the latter and pointed his gun to Leodegario saying "who is brave," and two shots rang out and that
serious and mortal gunshot wounds in different parts of his body which were the direct and there was a handkerchief covering the gun (t.s.n., p. 4, 8/23/95).
immediately (sic) cause of his instantaneous death, thus causing damage and prejudice to
his family. That the distance between Wilfredo and Leodegario was six (6) meters.

Contrary to law.3 Witness, on direct examination, declared that although he was the companion of Wilfredo in
coming from the town, he ran away and that he did not anymore know what happened to
The RTC laid out the facts based on the testimonies of the witnesses, to wit: Leodegario (t.s.n., p. 5, supra).

The forerunner of the case at bench was OD-275, for murder. It was filed on June 24, 1987. On cross-examination, witness Rommel admitted that he executed and affixed his signature
on an affidavit (Exh. "1" and "1-A") and that the same was executed only on July 27, 1995
The respondents were Palti Umambong and Wilfredo Cawaling. narrating therein the incident that happened [in] April 1987.
The case against Umambong was dismissed on January 25, 1991 on the basis of an
affidavit of desistance. Asked as to why witness took a long time before executing the affidavit, he commented that
the case then was dismissed, and that Wilfredo is a dangerous man having recently killed
On February 4, 1991, this Court likewise dismissed the case against Cawaling upon the his uncle Rexinol Brigido.
initiative of the prosecution.
Rommel elaborated further that he was ten (10) meters away from Wilfredo and also of the
Four (4) years thereafter, specifically on August 17, 1995, Cawaling was arrested, the case same distance to Leodegario.
against him for murder having been revived and accordingly docketed as OD-852.
Rommel declared that Palti was on a stump of a chainsawed coconut tree and about six (6) Asked as to the possible reasons why Wilfredo shot Leodegario, Gloria hinted that her
meters away from Wilfredo (t.s.n., p. 13, August 23, 1995). father-in-law left the SAKADA and secondly, because of politics, the victim being the
supporter of Natalio Beltran, Jr., while Wilfredo was for Manuel Martinez, candidates then
Palti did not [run] away (t.s.n., p. 15, supra). for Congressmen.

When asked what was Wilfredo doing after the shooting of Leodegario, Rommel said that Likewise, she testified that the case against Wilfredo relative to the incident of 1987 where
Wilfredo was going around, "pointing his gun and firing out, causing people to scamper Leodegario was the victim was dismissed because of settlement, the accused and Lilia
away (t.s.n., p. 5, August 25, 1995). Capispisan, the wife of the victim, are first cousins.

On clarificatory questions of the Court, Rommel admitted that "it was only Wilfredo who Queried as to whether the agreed settlement came about, Gloria said that the accused was
pointed a gun towards Leodegario, although Palti was also holding a gun but pointed able to produce only one-half of the monetary consideration, and that the condition that
downward." Wilfredo will not stay in San Jose, Romblon was not complied with because the latter even
ran as barangay captain and that accused shot and killed the nephew of her father-in-law,
Gloria Valentin Capispisan, 34 years old, married and a resident of Busay, San Jose, Rexinol Brigido and even pointed the gun to her husband for two (2) times (t.s.n. p. 11,
Romblon, the second witness for the Prosecution testified thus – 8/24/95).

She know(s) Wilfredo since childhood and that the victim Leodegario is her father-in-law. In the course of the cross-examination of Gloria she admitted having seen the affidavit of
waiver and desistance (Exh. "2" for the defense).
At about six o’clock in the evening of April 19, 1987 she was near the house of Porferio
after coming from the political caucus at the house of Romy Roldan who was then the OIC Gloria testified that before the shooting, she "saw Palti Umambong having a gun" (t.s.n. p.
Mayor of San Jose, and a supporter of Natalio Beltran, Jr. 14, Ibid).

She was in the company of Themestocles Sulat, Jojo Sulat, Noe Antonio, Leon Barrientos, In the hearing of August 25, 1995, Gloria admitted that she saw Palti when Leodegario was
Roberto Capispisan, Leodegario Capispisan and two others, and that she is the wife of already dead and that "he chased us."
Roberto Capispisan.
After the shooting, Gloria testified that she saw Wilfredo [run] after her companions, firing a
While negotiating the way home she saw Wilfredo seated on a bench along the road about gun (t.s.n. p. 7, supra)
ten (10) meters away from her and demonstrated that Wilfredo’s hands were on his lap, the
left covered by a handkerchief and the right over the handkerchief. Elaborating further, Gloria testified that she "saw Palti who had a gun" and Palti chased her
with a gun on his hand (t.s.n. p. 17, supra) and that Palti was near Leodegario lying on the
Wilfredo, according to witness, suddenly stood up and pointed his gun towards Leodegario ground, about three (3) meters.
and "I heard two shots" with Leodegario falling to the ground on his back (t.s.n. p. 6,
8/24/95). On additional cross-examination of Gloria, she admitted that she executed an affidavit,
regarding the incident on May 5, 1987 (Exh. "2" and "2-A" for the defense), while the
She attempted to approach Leodegario, her father-in-law but "she saw Palti with a gun" so signatures of the witnesses on the first and second pages were marked as Exhibit "2-B" and
she ran away (t.s.n. p. 8, supra). "2-C".

On question of the private prosecutor whether she saw the gun while Wilfredo was sitting, Relative to her affidavit, Gloria narrated in her sworn affidavit that "without any reason he
she replied that she could not see it because it was covered by a handkerchief. just shot my father-in-law."
As to why she did not include the name Rommel in her affidavit, she said it was because away. He looked for a sailboat and found one at Pinamihagan. He hired the sailboat and
Rommel was the companion of Wilfredo (t.s.n. p. 10, 1/12/98) reached Aklan (t.s.n., pp. 16, 17, supra).

To establish the presence of Rommel during the incident, Gloria categorically stated that He stayed in Aklan for three years.
Rommel was at the side of Wilfredo.
Palti, on redirect and recross examination, testified that he hid his gun before proceeding to
xxxx the cockpit and retrieved the same on his way from the cockpit and before he met Wilfredo
(t.s.n., p. 34, 8/24/98).
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE
xxxx
Palti Umambong, 53 years old, married, farmer, and resident of Hinulogan, San Jose,
Romblon narrated thus – Wilfredo Cawaling, 56 years old, married, a resident of Nabas, Aklan, and the accused in
this case testified as follows:
That it was him who shot and killed Leodegario.
He testified that noontime of April 19, 1987 he was at Poblacion, San Jose, Romblon at the
On April 19, 1987, he was in the cockpit of San Jose, and that his fighting cock was pitted residence of his sister, Heide Casimero where he took his lunch.
against that being handled by Leodegario.
Thereafter, accused went to his parents[’] house at Hinulugan, Busay, San Jose, in the
He bet ₱100.00 and referee Pedro Venus declared his cock as the winner. He demanded company of Rommel and Rudy de Villa, and that while walking towards Hinulugan they
his winning from the one listing the bets but was told that the bettor on the losing side did passed by the house of Porferio where he bought "tuba." All the time, he was with Rommel
not pay, and when he demanded from Leodegario his winning bet, he was told by the latter except for Rudy de Villa who proceeded to Busay.
that he will not pay because the decision of the referee was unfair (t.s.n., p. 6, 7/17/98).
While waiting for the "tuba," Rommel went to the back of the house of Porferio where he
Leodegario stood up and swung his right arm forward with a clenched fist and because of played volleyball together with Ricky and the latters['] brothers.
this Palti got angry prompting him to go home, but passed by the house of Porferio.
At the time he was waiting for the "tuba" he saw Palti walking along the road towards the
Near the house of Porferio he shot Leodegario because the latter did not pay him. house of Porferio. Thereafter, he beckoned Palti to come to him and asked him about the
cockfight. Palti informed him that the latter’s fighting cock won but that he was not paid his
When he reached the road fronting that of Porferio, he stopped because he was called by wining bet (t.s.n., p. 8, 10/24/98).
Wilfredo who was seated on a bench beside the road and asked as to what happened in
the cockpit and told the latter that he won except that he was not paid by Leodegario (t.s.n., That while he was conversing with Palti, he saw Leodegario on the road walking towards
pp. 11 and 12, supra). them in the company of Leon. Immediately, Palti turned his back and faced Leodegario and
demanded again his winnings (t.s.n., p. 18, 10/14/98). Thereafter, he heard, Leodegario
Later on, as witness testified, Leodegario passed by near the house of Porferio and Palti shouting "bakit ka makulit" and Palti retort[ed] by saying, "manloloko ka." At this point in
accosted him and demanded payment, but Leodegario retreated two steps backward and time, with Palti pointing his three fingers to Leodegario, the latter retreated two steps
was getting something from his waist as if drawing a gun and then he shot the victim twice backward and acted as if to draw something from his right waist which prompted Palti to
resulting to Leodegario falling down on his back (t.s.n., pp. 3-4, supra). raise his t-shirt and draw a revolver and fired at the victim. (t.s.n., p. 19, supra). As a result
of which the victim fell down on his back. Leon who was in the company of the victim ran
After the shooting he walked towards his house, and told his wife that he’d done something away after the shooting incident.
wrong, that is, that he killed a person – a certain Leodegario and that he (witness) will go
And that Rommel who was at the back of the house of Porferio also ran away (t.s.n., p. 22,
10/14/98). Thereafter, he saw Palti [run] towards Busay and found himself running too in the direction
of his father’s house, also in Busay.4
After the incident he stayed in his parents[’] residence at sitio Hinulugan and the following
day the 23rd of May, he returned to Nabas, Aklan where he resides. On the other hand, the findings of fact of the CA are set forth, as follows:

Failing to get his visa for Saudi Arabia, accused looked for a job in Manila, and finally The version of the prosecution is narrated in good detail in the People’s Brief submitted by
worked at a logging company in Baler, Quezon where he was the operations manager. He the Office of the Solicitor General:
worked in that logging company for almost two years, and after his work was terminated he
went back to Nabas, Aklan. At about six o’clock in the evening of April 19, 1987, at Hinulugan, San Jose, Romblon while
on their way home from the town proper, Wilfredo Cawaling, Palti Umambong and Rommel
In 1998 he returned again to Manila. While in the city he received a letter from his father Brigido passed-by (sic) the house of Porferia Vina to have a drink of tuba. While drinking
informing him that he together with Palti were charged of murder before this Court and that tuba, Leodegario Capispisan, Gloria Capispisan, Roberto Capispisan, Leon Barrientos,
there will be a hearing of their case and so he attended the same. Themosticles Sulat, Jojo Sulat, Noe Antonio and two others came heading toward their
direction (pp. 2-4, tsn, August 23, 1995). When Leodegario Capispisan was about two
The case against him was dismissed [in] February 1991 (Exhibit "2") because the meters near appellant, who was seated on the bench by the road, appellant stood up,
complainant, the wife of the victim, executed an affidavit of waiver (Exhibit "1"). pointed his gun to (sic) Leodegario and taunted the latter for his bravery. Thereafter, two (2)
gun shots were heard (p. 4, tsn, August 23, 1995). All the while, Brigido was seated on the
After the dismissal of the case, accused went to Papua, New Guinea and upon his return in table fronting the road drinking tuba with the others. He was about ten (10) meters from the
1992 he ran and was elected as barangay captain of Busay, San Jose, Romblon. talisay tree where appellant was seated. Palti Umambong, on the other hand, was standing
on the stump of the coconut tree at about six (6) meters distance from appellant (pp. 7-8,
In 1995 he ran for mayor but lost the election to Mayor Filipino Tandog. He then filed an tsn, August 23, 1995). From said distance, he saw Leodegario step back by about one (1)
election protest in this Court. On the scheduled hearing of his protest, he was arrested and meter, raising his hand in surrender. Brigido then heard two (2) gunshots. Brigido also saw
upon inquiry with the arresting officer he was told that the dismissed case was refiled, by Palti Umambong holding a gun but the same was pointed downward (p. 4, Records; pp. 23-
the same prosecutor who dismissed the original case. 24, tsn, August 23, 1995).

Accused denied the assertion of Rommel that he shot the victim contending this witness Upon hearing the shots, the people scampered away, including Brigido and Gloria, who
was at the back portion of the house of Porferio at the time of the incident (t.s.n., p. 30, also panicked and ran, leaving appellant and Umambong behind Leodegario Capispisan
10/14/98). sprawled on the ground dead (p. 25, tsn, August 23, 1995; see also pp. 3-8, tsn, August 24,
1995).
That when Palti confronted Leodegario about the former’s winning bet in the cockfight he
was five (5) meters distant from them and that he not only heard Palti saying "manloloko ka" The defendant, for his part, understandably presented a different version.
but pointed his fingers to the victim.
Accused claimed that about four o’clock in the afternoon of April 19, 1987, he left his sister’s
At that instant, witness continued, the victim withdrew by about two (2) steps and appeared house to go to Barangay Busay together with Rommel Brigido and Rudy de Villa who
to be pulling out something. happened to pass by his sister’s house on their way to Hinulugan where they also reside;
that on their way to Hinulugan he and Brigido stopped to buy tuba at the house of Porfiria
Thereafter, Palti raised his t-shirt, drew his gun and shot the victim (t.s.n., p. 6, 11/4/98). Bina while Rudy de Villa continued on his way home; that while he was sitting in front of the
house of Porfirio Bina, Palti Umambong came walking along the road and he asked Palti
Accused could determine the distance of Palti from where he was but Palti’s back was about the cockfight that afternoon; that Palti told him that he was not paid his winning bet of
facing towards him and Leodegario was in front of Palti. ₱100.00 by Leodegario when his (Palti’s) cock won; that Leodegario refused to pay him
alleging that the decision of the referee was unfair; that when he insisted to collect from
Leodegario the amount he won, Leodegario got angry at him and wanted to punch him. Consistent with paragraph 2,6 Section 13 of Rule 124, the CA certified the case and
elevated the records to us for review.
Appellant at this time saw Leodegario and Lean Barrientos walking along the road towards
their direction. When the two came upon them, Palti stopped Leodegario and asked him Cawaling, in his Appellant’s Brief, posits the following assignment of errors:
again to pay him what he won; that Leodegario remarked "bakit ka makulit?"; that Palti
reacted by shouting "manloloko ka" at the same time pointing a finger at Leodegario. 1. The Court of Appeals seriously erred when it convicted the herein accused-appellant of
Murder without sufficient and credible evidence.
At this point, Leodegario moved two steps backward and acted as if to draw something from
his waist which prompted Palti to fire his revolver at the victim. 2. The Court of Appeals seriously erred when it disregarded the findings of the trial court on
the aspect of the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses and their testimonies, despite
Leodegario then fell down on his back. well-established jurisprudence on the matter.7

The widow and the children of Leodegario Capispisan executed an Affidavit of Waiver and As the assigned errors are intertwined, we shall discuss and resolve both simultaneously.
Desistance dated January 24, 1991 signed by Lilia M. Capispisan and her eight (8) children
praying the authorities concerned "to consider the investigation of the criminal case against Cawaling maintains that the prosecution failed to discharge the requisite burden of proof in
Wilfredo Cawaling, et al., terminated or caused to be terminated." criminal cases because the eyewitness testimony of Rommel Brigido, as corroborated by
Gloria Capispisan, is not credible. He asserts that the RTC’s findings on the credibility of the
Accordingly, Judge Cezar R. Maravilla issued the Order dated February 4, 1991 dismissing witnesses should not have been disregarded by the CA. Specifically, Cawaling points out
the case against Wilfredo Cawaling without cost. that, as held by the RTC, the testimony of Palti Umambong, the self-confessed killer of the
victim, was more worthy of credence. As such, Cawaling prays that the decision of the CA
Four (4) years later, an Information charging Cawaling with murder was refiled. be reversed and set aside, and a new one issued, acquitting and exonerating him of the
crime charged.
On December 15, 1999, following the submission of the case for decision, the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon, rendered judgment. Conversely, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argues that the RTC overlooked facts
and circumstances when it found Cawaling liable merely as an accomplice to the crime of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, WILFREDO CAWALING is hereby found guilty homicide. The OSG avers that the delay in the execution of Rommel Brigido’s affidavit and
beyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice to the offense of homicide and is hereby the failure of the witnesses to identify the gun used by Cawaling do not diminish their
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of prision correccional as minimum to prision mayor credibility. In all, the OSG insists that the CA’s reversal of the RTC decision was warranted.
medium as maximum there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, or, from 4
years and 2 months to 8 years and 1 day with all its accessory penalties. Consequently, we juxtapose the conflicting findings of the two lower courts.

The accused shall be entitled to the benefits of Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code on The RTC’s findings zero in on Rommel Brigido’s belated execution of an affidavit which, for
preventive imprisonment. the lower court, completely diminished his credibility, to wit:

Accused, in case of appeal of the Decision, may apply for bail pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule 114 FINDINGS OF THE COURT
of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended.
On the third issue, the Court painstakingly perused the record of the case with objectivity
With costs. and an open mind, probing and analyzing the pros and cons so as to arrive at a definitive
conclusion thus eliminating the possibility of error and misjudgment.
SO ORDERED.5
In the testimony of Rommel in 1995 during the hearing of the petition for bail, the following distance of ten (10) meters and at a semi-darkness of the day is stretching the mind too far.
incidents came into light. One may hear the report of a gun but not the pulling of the trigger at the distance
aforestated.
Rommel asseverated that he was the companion of Wilfredo and Palti when they came
from the town of San Jose, Romblon. A presumption thus arises that a person allegedly holding a gun covered by a handkerchief,
if said person is the only one in the premises, the report of a gun could be attributed to him.
When Leodegario got near the bench where Wilfredo was seated, the latter "pointed his gun
towards Leodegario and two shots rang out" and that there was a handkerchief covering the But what if there were two persons? As in this case?
gun (t.s.n., p. 4, 9/28).
As to the credibility of Rommel, it may be stated that when the case originally filed against
When he saw Wilfredo pointing his gun towards Leodegario, he also "saw Palti holding a Wilfredo and Palti on June 24, 1987 and docketed as OD-275, Rommel was not listed as a
gun pointing downward." witness for the prosecution. It was only in 1995 when the case was revived that he gave his
testimony for the prosecution. So, it took him eight (8) years after 1987 to air his side of the
By a simple process of mathematical computation Rommel who initially testified in 1995 at incident. Like in the case filed in 1987 Rommel was also not listed in the information filed in
age 29 was only 20 or 21 at the time of the incident in 1987. For one to remember the 1995 as a witness for the prosecution. This creates a [sic] serious doubts in the mind of the
minutest details of events that happened eight years ago, merits the Court’s attention why it Court.
is so.
A surprise witness.
When the witness testified that the gun which Wilfredo was holding was covered with a
handkerchief, it is crystal clear that he did not see the gun itself but probably the likeness of The explanation for the delay was because the case was dismissed. Yes, the explanation
a gun, or, after the death of Leodegario his mind had been conditioned to conclude that seems plausible but one cannot disregard the fact that Rommel never did execute an
what was covered by the handkerchief was a gun. affidavit or sworn statement inculpating Wilfredo as the assailant of Leodegario from 1987
to the early part of 1995.
By testifying that he saw "Palti holding a gun" at the time that Wilfredo was pointing his gun
towards Leodegario, a disquieting poser comes up: Why was Palti holding a gun? Did he He only surfaced in 1995.
fire his gun? Or did he not?
Whatever is in the mind of Rommel, is beyond this Court’s comprehension, although such
Although Rommel said Palti did not fire his gun, it cannot be the gospel truth. It does not state of mind and the forces at work can be reasonably inferred from the acts and
mean that Palti did not fire his gun, those critical moments of April 19, 1987. submission of the witness.

Remember that Rommel categorically stated that he was ten (10) meters distant from What, therefore, prompted Rommel to come out of his self-imposed silence for eight years
Wilfredo when the incident happened. Six o’clock in the afternoon, the beginning of and [give] his testimony in this case?
nighttime and the end of daytime, is "nag-aagaw ang liwanag at dilim." And with the
distance mentioned by Rommel it is hard to say with definiteness as to whose gun the shot First of all, as the record would show Rommel was more or less, an "alalay" or friend of
came from, unless there is only one person in the vicinity. It could be from the gun of Palti Wilfredo. For short, they are in good terms with one another. In 1987 and prior to that.
who was visibly seen by Gloria and Rommel as holding a gun and not Wilfredo because his
hand allegedly with a gun was covered by a handkerchief thus impairing their vision of the This harmonious relationship may have ended when Rommel was not taken in as a
firearm. candidate for vice mayor by Wilfredo when the latter ran for mayor.

The squeezing of a trigger requires only a fraction of a second, without unnecessary As things go by, Rommel instead ran for vice mayor as an independent, but lost. With this, it
movement of body. For one to say he saw someone pulling the trigger of a gun at a means a break-up in their personal relationship.
Politics had taken a toll. xxxx

Finally, Rommel emerged as a winner in the last political exercise where he was elected to Be that as it may, circumstances are aplenty – by Palti’s admission and the testimony of
the Sangguniang Bayan of San Jose, under another political patronage. Rommel and Gloria that he (Palti) was holding a gun – that if put on the dock Palti would
have been found culpable for homicide and not murder. The lesser offense of homicide
The testimony of Rommel, therefore, remains suspect considering that he testified that (a) because the prosecution failed to establish and prove that the qualifying circumstance of
Wilfredo is a dangerous man and had killed his uncle Rexinel Brigido, (b) he saw a gun in evident premeditation existed in the commission of the offense. Three requisites must be
the hand of Wilfredo "but covered by handkerchief, (c) he saw Palti at that critical moment duly proved before evident premeditation may be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance,
holding a gun, (d) the long delay in giving his testimony, and (e) the supervening events namely: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, (b) an act
after 1987. manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination, and (c) a sufficient lapse
of time between such a determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the
These circumstances have created doubts in the mind of the Court. consequences of his act.

xxxx The killing of Leodegario was at the spur of the moment. An unpremeditated killing.

The undisputed assertion of Gloria and Rommel that Palti was holding a gun pointed xxxx
downward (Rommel) and that she saw before the shooting Palti holding a gun (Gloria) are
proof enough that Palti was holding a gun before, during and after the killing of Leodegario. The question to be asked: Could an accomplice be convicted even if the principal has not
Coupled by the admission in open Court by Palti that it was him who shot the victim, these been tried and convicted? The answer is yes. If principal is at large, still an accomplice can
pieces of evidence bear the earmarks of truth, no evidence to the contrary having been be convicted so long as the crime is fully established and the requisites for conviction as an
proved and established by the prosecution. accomplice are present.

Why was Palti holding a gun at the crucial minutes of the incident? Did he or did not fire his Again, reliance on the autopsy report of Dr. Edmundo Reloj (Exh. "A") is necessary if only to
gun? determine the number of bullet wounds the victim sustained. The doctor mentioned of two
(2) wounds, entrance and exit. In other words, only one bullet entered the body of the
What had motivated Palti to shoot Leodegario as alleged by him? What possible reason victim, resulting however to two (2) wounds, the entrance and the exit. Therefore, there as
would it be? only one assailant, contrary to the allegation in the information that the victim suffered
"serious and mortal gunshot wounds in different part[s] of his body" and the testimony of
Remember that he was not paid his winning bet of ₱100.00 by Leodegario despite his Rommel and Gloria that "two shots rang out."
repeated demands. The words "manloloko" (Palti) and "makulit ka" (Leodegario) are
expletives bordering on violence. xxxx

What did the prosecution witnesses say about Palti? As pointed out by this court Palti’s Wilfredo, on the other hand, cannot be faulted for the killing of Leodegario, but is found, on
participation was downgraded to the point that Palti was merely "holding a gun." The heat the basis of the evidence, as an accomplice in that Wilfredo according to Rommel was
was on Wilfredo not Palti. It is understandable because it would be an exercise in futility to "going around pointing his gun to different directions," and Gloria testifying that "Wilfredo
pin down Palti in the killing because he cannot anymore be proceeded against in view of the ran after her companions, firing a gun."
double jeopardy rule.
The case of People v. Crisostomo, 46 Phil. 775 where the accused prevented others in
These circumstances amply suffice [to support] the Court’s findings that Palti committed the helping the victim by scaring them away is deemed an accomplice only.
offense.
In case of doubt the Court must lean to the milder form of penalty, that of an accomplice. A: He fall (sic) down.
(People v. Manlangit, 73 SCRA 49).8
Q: Under this set up, was there an opportunity for Leodegario Capispisan to be avoiding
Cawaling took exception to the portion of the RTC decision that convicted him as (sic) the hit?
accomplice to homicide, and appealed to the CA. But as previously mentioned, the CA
reversed the RTC decision, convicted Cawaling of murder, and sentenced him to reclusion A: No, sir, because he has no chance to avoid that incident, he raised his two hands,
perpetua. The CA found that: (witness demonstrating by raising his right and left hands) and moreover the other side of
the road is a cliff.
Scrutinizing the evidence on record, this Court is convinced that the prosecution has
successfully overthrown the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused. xxxx

Primarily, the appellant questions the credibility of Gloria Capispisan and prosecution Q: What did the accused Cawaling do, the first time that you saw Capispisan approaching
rebuttal witness Rommel Brigido who were present at the time of the commission of the on April 19, 1987?
offense. We find no reason, however, why they would lie to implicate the accused. We find
their testimonies straightforward, unhesitating and sincere. Between the self-serving A: Wilfredo Cawaling suddenly stood up and pointed his gun and two shots rung out.
testimonies of the accused and the positive identification of the assailant made by
prosecution witnesses, the latter deserves greater credence. xxxx

As correctly pointed out by the appellee, herein appellant was positively identified by the Testimony of Gloria Capispisan
prosecution witnesses as the one who shot the victim, as follows:
Q: Mrs. Capispisan, do you know the accused, Wilfredo Cawaling in this case?
Testimony of Rommel Brigido
A: Yes, sir, I know.
Q: When Leodegario Capispisan came near Wilfredo Cawaling, who was seated on the
bench by the road, what happen? (sic) Q: Since when have you known him?

A: Wilfredo Cawaling suddenly stood up and pointed his gun to Leodegario Capispisan A: I know him since I was a child, since childhood because he was engage (sic) in buying
saying: "Who is brave", and two shots rung out. fish.

Q: You have demonstrated that the gun came from the lap of Wilfredo Cawaling, what if any Q: Where were you residing at the time when you knew Wilfredo Cawaling?
covers that gun?
A: Sta. Fe, Romblon.
A: There was a handkerchief covering that gun.
Q: And where was he buying fish during your younger days?
Q: How far was Leodegario Capispisan when Wilfredo Cawaling stood up and fired against
Leodegario Capispisan? A: He is buying fish from the fishermen at Cabalian, Sta. Fe, Romblon.

A: Witness pointing at the door with a distance of six (6) meters. Q: Now, since you have known Wilfredo Cawaling for long, please look around and point to
him if he is in the courtroom this morning?
Q: What happen (sic) to Leodegario Capispisan when two shots rung out?
A: I can see him (witness pointing to somebody in the courtroom who when asked his
name, replied that he is Wilfredo Cawaling). Q: Where was he?

Q: Do you know Leodegario Capispisan? A: He is sitting in the bench near the street.

A: Yes, sir. Q: Why were you passing the street?

Q: How are you related to the late Leodegario Capispisan? A: That is the only road that we will be passing to Busay.

A: Leodegario Capispisan is my father-in-law. Q: You claimed that you saw Wilfredo Cawaling seated on a bench, how was he seated, will
you demonstrate that to this Honorable Court?
Q: And where is Leodegario Capispisan now?
A: (Witness demonstrating by putting her two hands over her lap with her hand covered by
A: He is already dead, he was shot by Wilfredo Cawaling. her handkerchief and the right hand over the handkerchief).

Q: On April 19, 1987, about six o’clock in the evening, where were you? Q: About how far were you from Wilfredo Cawaling when you noticed his sitting in a manner
you have portrayed?
A: We were near Porferio Vina.
A: About ten (10) meters, sir.
Q: Where did you come from?
Q: Now, when you were near the place already where he was sitting, what happened?
A: We came from the caucus of Romy Roldan.
A: Wilfredo Cawaling suddenly stood up and he pointed his gun and saying who is brave,
xxxx by dropping the handkerchief.

Q: According to you, you attended a caucus in the house of Romy Roldan, who were your Q: Now, when Wilfredo Cawaling pointed his gun, to whom was it pointed?
companions in going home from there?
A: To Leodegario Capispisan, sir.
A: My companions were: Themosticles Sulat, Jojo Sulat, Noe Antonio, Leon Barrientos,
Roberto Capispisan, Leodegario Capispisan and two other tagalogs and myself. Q: When Wilfredo said who is brave, what did he do with his gun which he was pointing to
Leodegario Capispisan?
xxxx
A: It was pointed to Leodegario Capispisan and simultaneously I heard two shots.
Q: Now, who was ahead while you were on your way home?
Q: Did he fell (sic) down with his back or his stomach?
A: We were ahead.
A: He fell down on his back with blood oozing from his breast.
Q: When you reached near the place of Porferio Vina, do you know where was Wilfredo
Cawaling? xxxx

A: I saw him sir. Q: What did Wilfredo Cawaling do after firing his gun and after Leodegario Capispisan fell?
 Moreover, Rommel Brigido’s belated execution of an affidavit does not detract from or
A: He pointed his gun towards me. diminish the weight of his direct and positive testimony that Cawaling shot Leodegario, viz:

Q: What else? Q: Do you know Wilfredo Cawaling?

A: After telling him that I did not know this man, referring to my father-in-law, he ran after my A: Yes, sir.
companions firing his gun.9
Q: Since when have you known him?
From the foregoing contradictory findings, it is obvious that the resolution of this case
hinges on which version of the case is more worthy of credence. In other words, we must A: Since I was born because we were neighbor[s].
rule on whether the prosecution’s belatedly proffered eyewitness testimony of Rommel
Brigido trumps the similarly belated testimony of Palti Umambong who now claims xxxx
authorship of the crime.
Q: In the afternoon of April 19, 1987, did you see Wilfredo Cawaling?
It is well-settled that the credibility of witnesses is best determined by the trial judge, who
has the direct opportunity and unique advantage to observe at close range their conduct A: Yes, sir.
and deportment on the witness stand.10 The general rule is that findings of fact of the trial
court, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, and the probative Q: Where for the first time did you see him that afternoon of April 19, 1987?
weight thereof, as well as its conclusions based on said finding, are accorded by the
appellate court utmost respect, if not conclusive effect, and can only be set aside upon a A: In sitio Hinulugan, Brgy. Busay.
clear showing that it overlooked, ignored, misconstrued and misinterpreted cogent facts and
circumstances which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.11 Q: Where did you come from that afternoon?

This principle notwithstanding, we hold that the appellate court did not err in reversing the A: We came from the town.
trial court and convicting Cawaling of murder, as we fully agree with the argument of the
OSG that – Q: The town of what?

In this case, the judge who rendered the appealed decision, Judge Francisco F. Fanlo Jr., is A: San Jose.
not the same judge who heard the prosecution witnesses, namely, Rommel Brigido, who
testified on August 23, 1995 and Gloria Capispisan, who testified on August 24, and 25, Q: Aside from Wilfredo Cawaling, do you have any companion in going to the town of San
1995. When these two witnesses testified in 1995 the presiding Judge was Judge Cesar Jose, Romblon?
Maravilla. It was only on January 12, 1998 or three years later when Judge Fanlo, Jr. took
over the case and heard these witnesses for additional cross-examination. The additional A: Yes, sir.
cross-examination centered on the affidavits executed by these witnesses after the incident
and not on the incident itself. The rule on the weight to be given to the findings of the trial Q: Who were your companion (sic)?
court does not unqualifiedly apply, when the judge who rendered the decision did not hear
the principal evidence of the prosecution. For in such, case, his evaluation of the evidence A: Palti Umambong.
is based on the transcript of stenographic notes, which also forms the basis for the Court of
Appeals to review the trial court’s decision and render its own decision.12 xxxx

Q: Now, on your way home, where did you go?

A: We passed by Porferia Vina coming from the town. A: Because that case was dismissed and [Wilfredo] Cawaling was at large at that time and I
was asked to execute an affidavit.
Q: What did you do in the place of Porferia Vina?
xxxx
A: We were together in drinking two (2) balls of tuba.
Q: Why did you say that [Cawaling] is a dangerous man?
xxxx
A: He killed so many people and recently also shot my uncle, Rexinol Brigido.15
Q: Now, while drinking tube, what happen[ed]?
Gloria Capispisan likewise satisfactorily explained her failure to include the name of
A: While our drinking is not yet finished, I saw Wilfredo Cawaling sitting along the other side Rommel Brigido in her earlier account of the killing in April 1987, as the latter was the
of the road. companion of Cawaling. Subsequent thereto, Gloria categorically testified that Rommel was
at the side of Cawaling during the incident.
xxxx
The RTC erred in convicting Cawaling merely as an accomplice to homicide, and in giving
Q: How far was Wilfredo Cawaling sitting on the bench from the road where Leodegario full faith and credence to Palti Umambong’s testimony that he was the one who shot the
Capispisan and his group were passing? victim.

A: It was near, because the bench was just along the side of the road. We have gone through the trial court’s lengthy disquisition and tried to find a rational
explanation why Palti, who previously pled not guilty to the crime, will now accept
Q: When Leodegario Capispisan came near Wilfredo Cawaling, who was [seated] on the responsibility for the murder of Leodegario. Obviously, it is because the case against him
bench by the road, what happen[ed]? had already been dismissed, and he can no longer be successfully prosecuted for the
offense without breaching the rule on double jeopardy. Thus, with Palti securely shielded
A: Wilfredo Cawaling suddenly stood up and pointed his gun to Leodegario Capispisan from punishment by the principle of double jeopardy, he was at liberty to own authorship of
saying: "Who is brave," and two shots [rang] out. the crime. Accordingly, Palti’s credibility as a witness directly debunking Rommel’s
testimony is tainted by a serious cloud of doubt.
xxxx
Justice Ricardo J. Francisco, in his treatise on Evidence, writes: "the credibility of a witness
Q: How far was Leodegario Capispisan when Wilfredo Cawaling stood up and fired against depends as much upon himself as upon his testimony, upon his interest as upon his mental
Leodegario Capispisan? cultivation, his conduct before and at the trial, the consistency of his behavior from the time
he became aware of the fact to the time he relates it."16 Not surprisingly, Palti is now
A: Witness pointing at the door, with a distance of six (6) meters.13 motivated to confess to a crime for which he can no longer be held liable because of our
rule on double jeopardy.17
We have had occasion to hold that delay in making a criminal accusation will not
necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained.14 In We note that it was only Palti who was arraigned and who pled not guilty to the initial
this case, Rommel Brigido, on cross examination, explained, thus: Information for murder. At that time, Cawaling was at large. After the case against Palti was
dismissed, and now no longer in peril of punishment, he acknowledges commission of the
Q: Why did it take you so long to execute this affidavit where the incident took place way crime and conveniently absolves Cawaling who had remained at large. We perceive a
back on April [19] 1987 and you only executed your affidavit in support of this information brazen conspiracy to escape criminal liability for murder.
on July 27, 1995?
Justice Francisco, in the same book, states that when there is conflicting evidence, the The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused, dismissal
court is compelled to examine closely the motives of the witnesses for telling the truth or for of the case, or execution of the judgment of conviction.
falsely testifying.18 As between Rommel and Palti, there is, in the former, an absence of
proof, except for the defense’s bare allegations of political motivations, of an improper In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bail.
motive that would have impelled him to testify for the prosecution and accuse his former
friend and companion, Cawaling, of murder.19 As no improper motive can be imputed to With the conviction of Cawaling for murder, and the Court’s consequent failure to execute
Rommel, his testimony is entitled to full faith and credence. the judgment of conviction because of Cawaling’s flight, the motion must be denied. The
posted property bond cannot be cancelled, much less withdrawn and replaced with a cash
One other thing has sealed the conviction of Cawaling. We note that he jumped bail and bond by movant Cruz, unless Cawaling is surrendered to the Court, or adequate proof of his
fled. On this score, jurisprudence has consistently held that flight of an accused is indicative death is presented.
of his guilt.20
We are not unmindful that Cruz posted the property bond simply to accommodate
As to the propriety of Cawaling’s conviction for murder, the CA correctly appreciated the Cawaling, a relative, obtain provisional liberty. However, under Section 124 of Rule 114,
circumstance of treachery.21 We quote with favor the appellate court’s ruling thereon: Cruz, as a bondsman, guarantees the appearance of the accused before any court as
required under specified conditions.
The Solicitor General submits that the commission of the crime in the present case was
attended by treachery as clearly established by Rommel Brigido and Gloria Capispisan, It is beyond cavil that, with the property bond posted by Cruz, Cawaling was allowed
who testified that they saw appellant stand up from where he was seated and without temporary liberty, which made it possible, quite easily, to flee and evade punishment. As it
warning, pointed his gun at Leodegario and instantaneously fired the same, thus killing stands now, Cawaling, a convicted felon, is beyond reach of the law, and the property bond
Leodegario on the spot. cannot be released.1avvphi1

It is contended that "the attack being sudden and unexpected, Leodegario was not given IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
any chance to retaliate or defend himself from such attack." Accused-appellant Wilfredo Cawaling is found GUILTY of Murder and ordered to pay,
₱50,000.00 as indemnity and another ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, to the heirs of the
We agree. victim. The Manifestation with Motion of Movant Cruz is DENIED.

Treachery may be appreciated even if the attack was frontal but no less unexpected and SO ORDERED.
sudden, giving the victim no opportunity, to repel it or offer any defense of his person.
Frontal attach can be treachery when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim was
unarmed.22

We likewise agree with the OSG that the heirs of the victim must be awarded moral
damages in the amount of ₱50,000.00 consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.23

Lastly, we dispose of a corollary incident – the Manifestation with Motion to withdraw 23. QUI v. PEOPLE
property bond and post cash bond in lieu thereof – filed by bondsperson Margarita Cruz. In
this connection, Section 22 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court is explicit: FACTS:
Petitioner Cyril Qui was charged with 2 counts of violation of Protection of Children against
SEC. 22. Cancellation of bail.— Upon application of the bondsmen with due notice to the Child Abuse (acts of cruelty + shouting incentives). After trial, the RTC of QC convicted her
prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death. as charged and sentenced her to two equal periods of imprisonment of indeterminate
penalty of 5 years, 4 months and 21 days of prision correccional in its maximum period, as
minimum, to 7 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor in its minimum period, as
maximum.

Thus, on July 1, 2010, Cyril filed her Notice of Appeal with the CA. When the appeal was
perfected and the records elevated to the CA, she filed before the appellate court an urgent
petition/application for bail pending appeal which the People of the Philippines through the
OSG opposed. Citing Sec. 5 (d) of Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the CA
denied her application for bail pending appeal, as well as her motion for reconsideration,
hence Cyril filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court to assail the
denial of her application for bail pending appeal. The OSG urged denial due to her
propensity to evade the law as she failed to attend several hearings and requiring 3
warrants of arrest for her.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner is entitled to bail.

RULING:
NO. The court denied her bail based on Section 5 of Rule 114.This provides that upon
conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by D, RP or LI, admission to bail is
discretionary. This is pursuant to a “tough on bail pending appeal policy” wherein the
presence of bail-negating conditions mandates denial or revocation of bail. Considering that
an accused has already been convicted in the RTC, the granting of bail should be with
caution.

The CA’s ground was that she is a flight risk which is a bail-negating factor under 5 (d) – (1)
She failed to attend several meetings which lead to the issuance of 3 arrest warrants, (2)
Lied to justify non-appearance (said dad was in the hospital and died but that happened a
year before trial), (3) transferred residences without telling her bondsman and the trial court.
Also, after conviction with the RTC, the presumption of innocence + right to bail ends. After
conviction in the RTC, the application for bail becomes discretionary and it shall be
construed on a “tough on bail pending appeal policy.”Section 6 –Capital Offense Defined
Section 7 –Capital Offense, RP, LI not bailable People v. Valdez G.R. Nos. 216007-09,
December 8, 2015 (Malversation complex crime) Based on an audit conducted of the
disbursement vouchers of Bacolod City Government, it was discovered that Luz Valdez, the
former mayor of Bacolod, had altered the amounts of cash slips so that he received
reimbursement from the government amounting to 279k instead of only 4.8k. He was
charged with Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification.