SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 125086. July 28, 1999]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO MILAN Y ABON and VIRGILIO MILAN Y ABON, accused-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
A deafening blast abruptly stilled
the chattering guests gathered in the yard of Regino Bugtong. They were shocked and astounded. As the tremor subsided, the sound faded away
and the assembly scampered to safety, three (3) persons were found dead and
nine (9) seriously injured. For the
carnage, the brothers Rogelio Milan y Abon and Virgilio Milan y Abon were
charged with multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder qualified by
treachery and evident premeditation.[1]
The antecedents: On 21 July 1993 Regino Bugtong invited
several friends to celebrate his daughter’s birthday. Among those invited were Rogelio Milan and Domingo Reyes. During that occasion a heated discussion
developed between Rogelio Milan and Domingo Reyes over the cutting of a mango
tree which Domingo had planted at the boundary between their properties. Enraged by the accusation, Rogelio Milan
left the party in a huff. Thereafter
another argument ensued, this time between Rogelio Milan's brother Virgilio
Milan and Domingo Reyes. The two (2)
would have come to blows were it not for the timely intervention of Regino
Bugtong who tried to pacify them.
Meanwhile, Rogelio Milan rejoined
the party, and upon seeing the commotion, hurled an empty bottle of gin at
Domingo Reyes which unfortunately landed on Regino Bugtong's head. Irked by the incident, Domingo and his young
nephew Leonardo Reyes went after the Milan brothers who fled home. Then halted by a burst of gunfire from the
direction of the Milans, the Reyeses retreated to Bugtong's house and joined
the remaining guests now seated around a table under a mango tree illumined by
two (2) kerosene lamps.
The guests were just talking about
the startling occurrence when suddenly there was a rustle of leaves, followed
by a thud, then a thunderous bang. In
the aftermath, three (3) were found dead - Maria Concepcion Bugtong, Domingo Reyes
and Maryjane Bugtong. Seriously injured
were Regino Bugtong, Rodolfo Bugtong Sr., Lilia Bugtong, Rodolfo Bugtong Jr.,
Conchita Bugtong, Leonardo Reyes, Margot Bugtong, Virgilio Reyes and Mylene
Bugtong.
At least three (3) witnesses
pointed to the Milan brothers as the perpetrators. Regino Bugtong testified that with the aid of a flashlight he
saw Rogelio and Virgilio Milan beyond the banana grove running towards their
house seconds before the explosive, presumably a grenade, hit the ground.[2] In corroboration, Rodolfo
Bugtong Sr. and Leonardo Reyes attested that they saw Rogelio Milan in the act
of throwing something while his brother Virgilio was crouched somewhere between
the fringes of the banana grove and the rice fields.[3]
As expected in view of their plea
of not guilty, accused-appellants came out with a different version. According to them, they were both invited by
Regino Bugtong to his daughter's birthday party. Virgilio was specifically requested to help prepare the ducks for
cooking.[4] At the party, the men drank
Ginebra San Miguel as they engaged themselves in animated conversation. Domingo Reyes then teasingly prodded Rogelio
Milan to buy beer; and he acquiesced.[5] He handed over P100.00
to Regino Bugtong who asked someone to buy the beer.[6] In the meantime, the
lighthearted banter between Domingo Reyes and Rogelio Milan turned ugly when
Domingo once again needled Rogelio for cutting the former's mango tree. Rogelio angrily denied the accusation and
left. Domingo Reyes also left, followed
by his nephew Leonardo. When Domingo
returned, he was already wearing, quite ominously, a black jacket.[7] He approached Virgilio
Milan who was then operating the karaoke, and without a word, boxed him.[8] Not content, Domingo
collared Virgilio and raised him up. As
Virgilio held on to the sides of Domingo, he (Virgilio) felt a hard and round
object at Domingo's side. At this
juncture, Rogelio Milan hurled an empty bottle of gin at Domingo Reyes which
landed on the head of Regino Bugtong.[9] Upon seeing that Domingo
Bugtong was about to attack him, Rogelio ran towards their house to save
himself.[10] Virgilio Milan also ran
only to find himself pursued by Leonardo Reyes, Domingo Reyes, Domingo Bugtong
and Rodolfo Bugtong.[11] As Rogelio Milan and
Virgilio Milan dashed home for safety, Domingo Reyes, Leonardo Reyes, Domingo
Bugtong and Rodolfo Bugtong followed them until their front yard while
challenging them to a fight.[12] Peeping through their
window, the Milan brothers saw Domingo Bugtong holding an airgun, Rodolfo
Bugtong wielding a bolo, while Domingo Reyes and Leonardo Reyes were each
holding a round object which they could not clearly discern.[13] To support this contention,
Rogelio and Virgilio Milan produced the air pump which was dislodged from the
airgun after Leonardo Reyes had clubbed their dog to quiet it down.[14] Fortunately, the wives of
Domingo Bugtong and Rodolfo Bugtong arrived and pacified the group.[15] Maria Concepcion, the wife
of Domingo Bugtong and Rogelio Milan’s aunt by marriage, apologized to Rogelio
Milan for Domingo Bugtong’s behavior and returned the P100.00 which
Rogelio Milan had given for the beer.[16] Thereafer, the group led by
their wives returned to the party.
Rogelio and Virgilio Milan finally relaxed and went to sleep.[17] At ten in the evening they
were suddenly awakened by their father who told them that they were wanted by
the police.[18]
Charged accordingly for the death
and physical injuries of those at the party, the Milan brothers interposed
alibi and disclaimed any participation in the explosion. The trial court however did not believe them
and declared them guilty of multiple murder and multiple frustrated
murder. Both Rogelio Milan and Virgilio
Milan were sentenced each to a penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay
civil as well as actual damages to the victims.[19]
Both accused-appellants come to us
insisting that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. They primarily raise the issue
of the court a quo’s erroneous appreciation of facts and its failure to
consider the evidence they presented in their behalf.
Findings of fact of the trial
court, especially its assessment on the credibility of witnesses, are not to be
disturbed on appeal. The trial court is
in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial
evidence because of their unique opportunity to directly observe the witness’
demeanor, conduct, deportment and manner of testifying.[20] But this is not without
exception. When there appears on record
that the trial court has overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or
circumstance of weight or significance that if considered would alter the
result, this Court may disregard the findings of the trial court and make its
own conclusions.[21] Hence, we shall proceed to
consider accused–appellants’ arguments.
Accused-appellants assail the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
They contend that the failure of Rodolfo Bugtong Sr. to give an
affidavit immediately after the incident and Leonardo Reyes’ omission to reveal
the identity of the culprits prior to his testimony before the lower court
gravely diminished the integrity of their statements.[22]
The lapse of a considerable length
of time before a witness comes forward to reveal the identity of the assailant
does not taint the credibility of the witness and his testimony, especially
when there are valid reasons for the delay.[23] The natural reticence of
most people to get involved as witnesses in criminal cases, either due to their
fear of reprisal[24] or when they are related to
the victim who has just undergone a traumatic experience,[25] is of judicial notice. For this reason, the Court finds no
justification to discredit Rodolfo Bugtong, Sr. His failure to prepare an affidavit immediately after the tragedy
has been satisfactorily explained by the fact that he had to attend first to
his wife who was then in the hospital.[26] His deigning to prioritize
his wife’s well-being over his need to be vindicated for an offense certainly
does not denote ambivalence, hesitation, nay, vacillation. However, we are not inclined to take the
same view with regard to the testimony of Leonardo Reyes. As admitted by him, his appearance before
the trial court was prompted by the request of Regino Bugtong only the day
before he took his oath to testify.[27] Considering that by his own
admission he did not previously narrate to anyone what he supposedly saw that
fateful evening, nor did he name Rogelio and Virgilio Milan as the authors of
the crime, we cannot help viewing his testimony before the trial court as
precipitous, hence, suspect.
Accused–appellants would cast
doubt on the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution by pointing out
that the successful identification of the malefactors was not possible
considering the circumstances then obtaining.
The time and place of the incident and the means used to identify the
alleged assailants minimized the possibility of their recognition.[28]
The evidence shows that it was
around eight o’clock in the evening when the explosion occurred and darkness
had already set in.[29] The guests were then seated
around a small table below the mango tree, illumined by two (2) kerosene lamps,
one placed on the table and the other on a bench at the north side of the
table.[30] Regino Bugtong was among
the group, being treated for his head injury, and was holding a flashlight.[31] Rodolfo Bugtong and
Leonardo Reyes testified that they saw Rogelio Milan throw an object, which
could be a grenade, seconds before the explosion, while Virgilio Milan was
crouched somewhere between the fringes of the banana grove and the rice fields.[32]
However, evidence likewise reveals
that the banana grove was some 5 to 15 meters to the south of the table
situated under the mango tree; that the grove was densely planted with banana
trees almost 10 to 20 feet in height; and, that it was 40 to a 100 meters in
length from east to west and about 5 to 10 meters in width from north to south.[33] The lush banana grove stood
on a ground about 1 meter and 6 inches higher than the rice fields where
accused-appellants were allegedly seen to have hurled an object which could be
a grenade.[34]
In the environmental milieu it
would seem that identification of the assailants was nil or, at most,
speculative. Firstly, the illumination
from the two (2) kerosene lamps was not sufficient to have reached the vicinity
of the rice fields where accused-appellants were allegedly spotted. The nature of the light used - pieces of
cloth dipped in kerosene and inserted into gin bottles - prevented it from
reaching the far recesses of the banana grove, much less the rice fields. As can be gathered from the testimonies of
the witnesses, one (1) of the kerosene lamps had to be held near the head of
Regino Bugtong for him to be treated properly for the injuries he received
despite the presence of the other kerosene lamp on the table.[35] This only shows that the
illumination was too inadequate even for those seated around the table, and was
confined only to those near the kerosene lamps. It is therefore highly improbable, if not impossible, for the light
to have reached the banana grove 5 to 15 meters away, much more, the rice
fields beyond it.
Secondly, even assuming that the
light coming from the kerosene lamps was adequate, the banana grove stood as an
obstruction between the table where the witnesses were gathered and the rice
fields where accused-appellants were reportedly seen. Pictures of the banana grove reveal that it was densely planted
with banana trees 10 to 20 feet tall, making human passage difficult.[36] At daytime, one would not
even be able to recognize another on the other side of the banana grove.[37] It was therefore very unlikely for light to have extended far
beyond the banana grove and spread towards the rice fields for the protagonists
to see and identify each other. With
such visual and physical obstruction it was impossible for witnesses to have
recognized accused-appellants in the darkness with the aid only of the two (2)
kerosene lamps.
We also doubt, very seriously, the
veracity of Regino Bugtong’s testimony.
He said that upon hearing the rustle of leaves above him and seconds
before a hard object landed on the ground, he beamed his flashlight towards the
banana grove and saw accused-appellants running towards the rice fields.[38] The movements of Regino
were contrary to natural reflexes.
Ordinarily, upon hearing nature's unexpected sounds, e.g., the rustle of
leaves, a person would direct his attention to the place where the sounds
originated and not to the empty space beyond it. Regino Bugtong would have normally focused his flashlight in that
direction and not on the banana grove.
Even assuming that his reaction was out of the ordinary, the thick
banana trees formed a curtain of formidable foliage for the light to
permeate. In the split second that
Regino Bugtong heard the rustle of leaves and the explosive hitting the ground,
he could not have strayed the flashlight and instantaneously spotted
accused-appellants.
For evidence to be believed it
must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, it must also be
credible in itself,[39] meaning, it must be such
which common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable
under the circumstances.[40] In the instant case, the
recognition of the assailants was highly improbable, if not impossible. The darkness and the abundance of the banana
trees naturally impeded recognition despite the two (2) kerosene lamps and a
flashlight. What they probably saw, at
most, were simply silhouettes of the grenade throwers. Other than their forthright declaration that
they saw accused-appellants, the prosecution witnesses never elaborated on how
they were able to identify them even through some telltale signs which could
have given the perpetrators away. But
there was none of that sort.
In criminal cases, the prosecution
has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[41] By constitutional fiat, the
burden of proof falls on the prosecution[42] not only to show clearly
that a crime had been committed but, more importantly, to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the identity of the person or persons who committed the crime.[43] Proof of the offense
without sufficient proof of the identity of its author cannot result in a
conviction.[44] When the identification of
the accused does not measure up to the standard of moral certainty required in
criminal cases, as in this case, there is no recourse but to acquit the
accused.
True, ranged against the efforts
of the prosecution to pin them down, accused-appellants merely sought refuge in
alibi, admittedly a weak defense, claiming they were at home sleeping when the
explosion was heard. Besides, the house
of the Milans was only about a 150 meters from the house of Regino Bugtong,
which distance would not preclude the physical presence of accused-appellants
at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity.[45] However, their alibi should
not be outrightly dismissed as false, especially when viewed in the light of
the inherent weakness of the prosecution’s case.[46]
As a rule, alibis should be
considered with suspicion and received with caution, not only because they are
inherently weak and unreliable, but also because they can easily be fabricated.[47] But equally fundamental is
the axiom that evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[48] A conviction in a criminal
case must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty of guilt. The prosecution cannot use the weakness of
the defense to enhance its cause. And,
where the prosecution’s evidence is weak or just as equally tenuous, alibi need
not be inquired into.[49]
We are not saying here, lest we be
misunderstood, that accused-appellants are guilt-free. There is some material evidence hinting at
them as the possible perpetrators of the crime. But, in all conscience, we cannot brush aside the possibility that
they could have been wrongly pointed to, given the peculiar physical setting of
the locus criminis as stressed by the defense. Conclusion based on speculations cannot serve as a basis for
conviction,[50] especially for a crime that
is of grave magnitude and consequence.
There should be more proof than the mere outright declaration by the
witnesses that Rogelio and Virgilio Milan were indeed behind the crime,
particularly so when the testimonies appear to be faulty and dubious. When the circumstances admit two or more
possible explanations, the one favoring the accused should be chosen. The slightest doubt should be resolved in
his favor. Thus on reasonable doubt we
are compelled to reverse the judgment of conviction and acquit
accused-appellants instead.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the trial court finding
accused-appellants ROGELIO MILAN y ABON and VIRGILIO MILAN y ABON guilty of
multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Consequently, they are ACQUITTED
of the crimes charged and ordered released immediately from confinement unless
they are held for some other lawful cause.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.
[1] Information; Rollo, p. 1.
[2] TSN, 25 May 1994, p. 145; TSN, 13 July 1994,
pp. 227-228; TSN, 14 July 1994, pp. 234-237.
[3] TSN, 5 January 1994, p. 14; TSN, 21 September
1994, pp. 279-281.
[4] TSN, 1 February 1995, p. 351.
[5] TSN, 7 June 1995, pp. 421-422.
[6]
Ibid.
[7] TSN, 2 February 1995, p. 358.
[8] TSN, 1 February 1995, pp. 354 and 358.
[9] TSN, 15 June 1995, p. 433.
[10] Ibid.
[11] TSN, 2 February 1995, p. 357.
[12] TSN, 20 July 1995, pp. 441-442; TSN, 2
February 1995, p. 365.
[13] TSN, 2 February 1995, p. 362
[14] TSN, 25 July 1995, p. 444; TSN, 14 February 1995,
p. 373.
[15] TSN, 25 July 1995, p. 444.
[16] TSN, id., pp. 444-446.
[17] TSN, 2 February 1995, p. 367.
[18] TSN, id, pp. 368-370.
[19] Decision penned by Judge Jose B. Rosales,
promulgated on 4 April 1996; Records, pp. 277-286.
[20] People v. Benito, G.R. No. 128072, 19
February 1999, citing People v. Victor, G.R. No. 127903, 9 July 1998.
[21] People v. Pidia, G.R. No. 112264, 10 November
1995, 249 SCRA 687, citing People v. Florida, G.R. No. 90254, 24 September
1992, 214 SCRA 227; People v. Aguilar, G.R. Nos. 98425-26, 21 May 1993, 222
SCRA 394; People v. Sulte, G.R. No. 109881, 18 May 1994, 232 SCRA 421; People
v. Constantino, G.R. No. 109119, 16 August 1994, 235 SCRA 384.
[22] Appellant’s Brief; Rollo, pp. 117-121.
[23] People v. Batidor alias “TORA,” G.R. No.
126027, 18 February 1999.
[24] People v. Dominguez, G.R. No. 100199, 18
January 1993, 217 SCRA 170; People v. Vinas Sr., G.R. Nos. 112070–71, 29 June
1995, 245 SCRA 448; People v. Teehankee Jr., G.R. Nos. 111206–08, 6 October
1995, 249 SCRA 59; People v. Francisco, G.R. No. 99058, 25 October 1995, 249
SCRA 526
[25] People v. Reoveros, G.R. No. 115987, 23
August 1995, 247 SCRA 628; People v. Pacapac, G.R. No. 90623, 7 September 1995,
248 SCRA 77.
[26] TSN, 23 March 1994, pp. 105–106.
[27] TSN, 27 September 1994, pp. 296-299.
[28] Accused-Appellants’ Brief; Rollo, pp.
121-135.
[29] TSN, 1 February 1994, p. 61.
[30] Ibid.
[31] TSN, 13 July 1994, pp. 227-228.
[32] TSN, 5 January 1994, p. 14; TSN, 21 September
1994, pp. 279–281.
[33] Rollo, pp. 132-133.
[34] Ibid.
[35] TSN, 1 February 1994, p. 63.
[36] Exhs. “1” - “7;” Records, pp. 269–272.
[37] TSN, 2 August 1995, pp. 455-457.
[38] TSN, 13 July 1994, pp. 227-228.
[39] People v. Abellanosa, G.R. No. 121195, 27
November 1996, 264 SCRA 722, citing People v. Escalante, G.R. No. 106633, 1
December 1994, 238 SCRA 554.
[40] Ibid.
[41] People v. Bato, G.R. No. 113804, 16 January
1998.
[42] Ibid.
[43] People v. Pidia, G.R. No. 112264, 10 November
1995, 249 SCRA 687.
[44] Ibid.
[45] People v. Batidor alias “TORA,” G.R. No.
126027, 18 February 1999, citing People v. Tulop, G.R. No. 124829, 2 April
1998; People v. Balano., G.R. No. 116721, 29 May 1997; People v. Salvador, G.R.
No. 113025, 16 September 1997, 279 SCRA 164.
[46] People v. Abellanosa, G. R. No. 121195, 27
November 1996, 264 SCRA 722.
[47] People v. Batidor alias “TORA,” G.R. No.
126027, 18 February 1999, citing People v. Tulop et al., G.R. No. 124829, 21
April 1998; People v. Balano, G.R. No. 116721, 29 May 1997; People v. Salvador,
G.R. No. 113025, 16 September 1997, 279 SCRA 164.
[48] People v. Cartuano, G.R. Nos.
112457-58, 29 March 1996, 255 SCRA 403.
[49] People v. Raquel, G.R. No. 119005, 2 December
1996, 265 SCRA 248.
[50] People v. Gapasan, G.R. No. 110812, 29 March
1995, 243 SCRA 53.