LUCY RAMOS, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

The accused seeks a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated March 20, 1978 in CA-G.R. No. 16682-Cr. entitled, “People of the
Philippines vs. Lucy Ramos,” affirming the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Negros Oriental, Branch IV, finding her guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of frustrated murder and sentencing her to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from four (4) years, two (2)
months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to ten
(10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, to
indemnify the complainant Acceles [or Acciles] Fundador in the sums of P3,000
and P1,000 by way of compensatory and moral damages, respectively, but without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.” (p.
73, Appellant’s Brief.)

The petitioner and her husband, Clemente Ramos, together with
their five (5) children and househelpers, resided in the mountains of Pakuan,
eighteen (18) kilometers from the town of La Libertad, Dumaguete. It is accessible only by means of weapons
carriers which ply the Pakuan-La Libertad route. The Ramoses were settled comfortably in Pakuan. Mainly through the efforts of the
enterprising Lucy, the family was profitably engaged in the businesses of copra
trading and rice and corn milling. Their immediate neighbors, the Fundador brothers – Wilson and Acciles,
lived about 60 meters away. Acciles, an
ex-convict, returned to Pakuan in 1966, after having served sentence for
homicide in the National Penitentiary in Muntinglupa.

On December 1, 1966, Clemente Ramos went to La Libertad to fetch
a mechanic, Wani Cabanag, to do some repairs on their rice mill in Pakuan. On the other hand, Lucy Ramos, with her son,
Domingo, and a houseboy, went to their rice mill in Bagtic, Dumaguete, to check
and change the oil of their mill machinery there.

It was already late in the afternoon when Clemente Ramos returned
to Pakuan with Wani Cabanag. Upon
arriving home, he was informed by his children that Acciles Fundador, together
with some drunken companions, had encircled their house in a mock procession,
carrying a bamboo cross strung with a piece of cloth. Every now and then, they stopped to hurl stones at the rice and
corn mill.

Not one to cringe before rowdies. Clemente decided to confront the Fundadors and proceeded to the
latter’s house. Barely a few meters
from his house, he was met by the Fundador brothers. A quarrel ensued. Acciles
grabbed Clemente from behind and immobilized him with a strangle-hold, while
Wilson bashed an empty Vino Dato (rice-wine) bottle on Clemente’s head. As blood gushed out of the wound on
Clemente’s forehead, the brothers rained fist blows on his stomach.

Lucy Ramos arrived home from Bagtic at eight o’clock in the
evening. She was informed of the
incident and even while she was dressing her husband’s wound, the Fundadors
filled the air with gunshots outside their house until midnight. The Ramoses and their household did not eat
supper as they fearfully kept a close watch for their tormentors. At dawn the next day, they were awakened by
the shouts of Acciles Fundador, who had come to the rice mill yelling: “Come down, Bay, let’s finish each
other!” Discovering that the door of the mill was locked, Acciles
approached the main door of Clemente’s house. From the balcony, a rifle shot rang out, hitting Acciles in the
chest. Clutching his breast, Acciles
ran to the house of councilor Graciano Esler, who lived across the creek near
the Ramos mill. He was immediately
brought to the Guihulngan Emergency Hospital where he was treated and after
eight (8) days was transferred to the Silliman University Medical Center where
he was operated on and underwent medical treatment for forty-five (45) days.

Acciles’ sworn statement was taken by the La Libertad Chief of
Police at the Guihulngan Emergency Hospital on December 2, 1966. Those of other witnesses were taken a few
days later.

On December 6, 1966, a complaint for frustrated murder was filed
against the spouses Clemente and Lucy Ramos in the Municipal Court of La
Libertad. On February 12, 1968, more
than two (2) years after the incident,
an Information for frustrated murder was filed in the Court of First Instance
of Negros Oriental, Branch II, against the Ramos spouses. The information reads:

“That on or about the 2nd day of December, 1966, in the
municipality of La Libertad, Province of Negros Oriental, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating, and helping one another, with intent to kill, evident
premeditation and treachery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously shot one Acciles Fundador with the use of an LP Rifle Calibre .22
(Serial No. 36325), thereby hitting and wounding the latter at different parts
of the body, thus inflicting the following injuries, to wit: wound, gunshot, 1/2 cm. diameter, chest,
mid-clavicular line, at the level of the 4th rib, right and point of exit,
wound, gunshot, 1 cm. diameter, mid-scapular line, at the level of the 7th rib,
right; thus performing all the acts of execution which would have produced the
crime of murder as a consequence but which nevertheless did not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator, that is, the
timely and able medical assistance rendered him which prevented his
death.” (pp. 40-41, Appellant’s Brief.)

During the trial, the parties presented diametrically opposed
versions of the incident. The
prosecutions’ witnesses were Graciano Esler and the complainant, Acciles
Fundador. Ranged against them were
Ramos’ twelve-year-old son, Steve, the mechanic, Wani Cabanag, Councilor
Esler’s brother, Pedro, Jr., Pedro Obenza, Bertoldo Camero, and Artemisa
Gantalao.

The complainant alleged that he was in the yard of his stepmother
in Pakuan, feeding the chickens while Lucy was on the porch of her house. Suddenly, a shot rang out and he was hit in
the breast. Acciles, who testified
seven (7) years after the incident, alleged that he saw Lucy Ramos “from
the breast up” behind the wooden jalousies on the second floor of her
house, “holding a gun;” that he ran to the house of Councilor
Graciano Esler who brought him immediately to the hospital.

After the prosecution had finished presenting its evidence, the
trial court, upon motion of the fiscal, ordered the dismissal of the charge
against Clemente Ramos on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.

The defense evidence on the other hand, attempted to show that
Acciles Fundador was shot not by Lucy Ramos but by the houseboy, Venancio
Estrabella, who saw Acciles in a belligerent mood, approach the main door of
the Ramos’ house. Upon Clemente’s
prodding (“Cio, avenge for me!”) he allegedly rushed to the family
room, grabbed the rifle, ran back to the balcony and, inserting the gun’s
barrel through the jalousie shutters, he aimed and fired at Acciles who was
standing three (3) meters below.

Twelve-year-old Steve Ramos, Wani Cabanag and Councilor Esler’s
housemaid, Artemisa Gantalao, corroborated the theory of the defense. However, this defense theory was shaken on
rebuttal when the houseboy, Venancio Estrabella, denied shooting Acciles. He explained that he admitted at the police
investigation that he shot Acciles because Lucy Ramos promised to give him
P3,000. He allegedly did not know how
to handle a rifle.

On March 26, 1974, the court a quo rendered a
decision finding Lucy Ramos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated murder
but appreciated in her favor the mitigating circumstance of immediate
vindication of a grave offense.

Lucy Ramos appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA?G.R. No.
16682-Cr) which affirmed the lower
court’s decision. Upon denial of
her motion for reconsideration, she filed this petition for review.

We find merit in the petition for review.

The facts as found by the trial court and the Court of Appeals,
do not conclusively identify Lucy Ramos as the person who shot Acciles.

Acciles himself in his statement to the police, said he saw
Clemente Ramos. He did not mention
Lucy:

“I answered that way because after I was shot and I was
holding my breast with my two hands, right there at the stairs I saw
somebody coming out and since the clothes of that person was the same as
that of Clemente Ramos, I said I saw Clemente Ramos at the stairs. x x x what I saw was the dress and it was
the same as that of Clemente Ramos x x x When I was hit, I immediately ran
away. My sight of him was sudden
because I immediately ran away x x x I could not say he was not there nor could I say he was there because when
I was hit, I could not see clearly
because I immediately ran away. What I saw was only
a figure.” (pp. 53, 54, tsn, February 1, 1973.)

Two (2) years after the incident, the fiscal did not have prima
facie evidence against either of the spouses that is why he filed an
information against both of them.

However, when Acciles testified at the trial on February 1, 1973,
or seven (7) years after the shooting, he fingered Lucy Ramos as the
triggerman:

“While I was feeding chickens, unexpectedly I was shot by Mrs.
Lucy Samoza Ramos. I did not expect her
to shoot me because there was no misunderstanding between us. I was shot by her because after I
was shot on the breast, I saw Mrs. Ramos at her window holding a
gun. x x x She was standing on the
porch which is on a higher place x x x what could be seen
was only up to her breast but she
could be seen because of the opening of the jalousie of her windows are wider than these.” (Ibid.)

This self-contradiction strikes at the heart of his
credibility. Falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus.

Why did Acciles and Venancio Estrabella change their tune?

Seven (7) years after the shooting much water had passed under
the bridge. Clemente Ramos had already
abandoned his loyal, hard-working and enterprising wife Lucy and cleaved to
Acciles’ sister. From erstwhile
enemies, he and Acciles became good friends. This change in the situation of the parties caused a shift in the
loyalty of Venancio and in Acciles’ story. Loyal to Clemente, the houseboy Venancio was persuaded to repudiate his
earlier testimony owning the crime, and put the blame on Lucy, so that, with
his wife out of the way, he (Clemente) would have the run of Lucy’s properties
and businesses.*

Ranged against Acciles’ uncorroborated identification of Lucy as the gun-wielder are the
testimonies of Artemisa Gantalao, Councilor Esler’s housemaid and Councilor
Esler’s brother, Pedro, Jr. Artemisa
testified that when the councilor asked Acciles who shot him, the latter’s
answer was: “I cannot tell who of them fired at me, whether it was Lucy
Ramos or Clemente Ramos.” Pedro Esler, Jr., who brought Acciles to the
hospital, declared that “he told me he did not know who shot him. What he saw was the barrel of the gun.”

The crime for which Lucy Ramos is charged is a serious one. She should not be deprived of her liberty
unless the proofs show beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty. The evidence of the prosecution, however,
does not meet the standard of certainty required for her conviction. We hold that her guilt was not proven beyond
a reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals
is hereby reversed and set aside. The
accused, Lucy Ramos, is acquitted of the crime charged, with costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

*
Clemente died after the trial without being reunited with his legitimate
family.