G.R. No. L-35278. October 23, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEONIDES QUINTO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ANTONIO, J.:
Appeal from the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court, Seventh Judicial
District, in Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-953-Rizal, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, finding the accused Leonides
Quinto, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Murder as defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as charged in
the Information, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH;
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Patrolman Jaime Butawan,
the amount of P12,000.00; to pay the amount of P10,000.00 as moral damages and
another P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay the costs.”
The Information in the foregoing criminal case accuses appellant Leonides Quinto and four (4)
other unknown persons of having committed the crime of Murder in the following
manner:
“That on or about the 1st day of May, 1971, in the
Municipality of Makati, Province of Rizal and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another, with intent to kill, at nighttime, a circumstance deliberately sought
by the accused to facilitate the commission of the offense, with treachery,
taking advantage of superior strength, with insult to the public authorities
and by the use of motor vehicle, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and shoot with guns Patrolman Jaime Butawan, hitting and inflicting upon the vital parts of his
body mortal gunshot wounds which caused his untimely death.”
Upon arraignment, Leonides Quinto pleaded not guilty.
To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution presented the
testimonies of four (4) witnesses, namely, Caridad
Pasco, the alleged eyewitness, Mariano Cueva, Jr.,
NBI Medico-Legal Officer, Rodino Hidalgo,
a taxi driver and Juanita Vda. de Butawan,
widow of the deceased Pat. Jaime Butawan.
Caridad Pasco, the lone eyewitness,
testified that on May 1, 1971
while she was working at the Topside Cafe at Buendia
corner Superhighway, Makati,
Rizal, she saw Leonides Quinto at about 8:00 o’clock
in the evening, with around ten (10) companions who arrived therein in a
taxicab. At the time, Leonides Quinto was dressed in
short pants and polo shirt, and two of his companions were wearing fatigue uniforms
and the rest were in civilian clothes. Leonides Quinto was then carrying
a small or short firearm while his companions had armalites. When she asked one of the companions of the
accused where they came from, he replied that they came from the highway where
they slaughtered a dog for “pulutan“. Quinto and his
companions later left the Topside Cafe but returned at around 11:30 P.M.
When they returned they were already drunk and they danced with the
girls in the Topside Cafe. As this was
going on, Patrolmen Liberato Fernandez and Jaime Butawan arrived in a jeep.
Pat. Butawan accosted the persons in civilian
clothes who were carrying armalites. One of the companions of Quinto
who had been talking with her went out and handed a piece of paper to Pat.
Fernandez Shortly thereafter, Quinto, armed as
aforesaid with a small gun, and his companions surrounded the two
policemen. She heard a gun report and
she lay flat on the floor face downwards because she was afraid. Thereafter, she heard successive shots and
somebody shouted: “Patay na ‘yan!” She
admits that she did not see who uttered those words as she was lying face down
on the floor. She heard someone say:
“May mga tao pa ba diyan?”. Afterwards, Leonides
Quinto and his companions left the scene of the
incident. When she stood up, she saw
that she was alone in the Cafe. She
noticed Pat. Butawan lying on the ground already
dead. According to this witness, Pat.
Fernandez was hit by a stray bullet.
On cross-examination, this witness admitted that she did not
immediately go to the police station to report the incident but that certain
policemen arrived at the scene and asked her what her name was; that Mrs. Rose
Ortiz, the owner of the Topside Cafe, did not allow her to give a statement
because according to the latter she would be the one to give a statement; that
however, witness and Mrs. Ortiz were invited to go to the police station where
they stayed until the following morning; that she did not then give a
statement, allegedly because Mrs. Ortiz still would not allow her to do so; and
that she gave a statement to the police only on September 25, 1971 when she was
accompanied by Mrs. Butawan.
Mariano B. Cueva, Jr., Medico-Legal
Officio of the NBI, testified for the prosecution, thus that he performed the post
mortem examination on the body of Pat. Butawan
and prepared the Necropsy Report (Exhibit “A”); that after the
positive identification was made by the widow of the victim, photographs were
taken by the NBI photographer (Exhibits “B”, “B-1” to
“B-3”); that from the size of the gunshot’ wounds, the bullets
causing them could have been fired from Caliber .22 firearms, such as armalites; that they could have been caused by more than
one person; and that the victim died of severe hemorrhage as a consequence of
gunshot wounds on the chest, abdomen and left thigh.
Rodino Hidalgo, taxi driver, testified
that between 12:00 midnight of April 30, 1971 and 1:00 o’clock A. M. of May 1,
1971, he was driving his taxicab with Plate No. 65-79 Q.C.; that at the corner
of Buendia and Superhighway, he picked up five (5)
passengers; that before said passengers got in his cab, one of them boarded the
same and pointed a gun at him; that thereafter the companions of the gun
wielder, not less than four, arrived and got in the cab; that he was told by
his passengers to drive fast toward Magallanes; that
one of the passengers, who was in short pants, said: “Kay Ablan tayo, pare“; that
he was made to stop in front of a gate; that the person in short pants again
spoke and said: “Tiyak na patay na
iyon, pare“, and the group alighted from the
cab after paying the fare of P0.80; that thereafter he brought the cab to the
garage and went to see his brother, Reynaldo Hidalgo, and he heard that a
policeman had killed; that they proceeded to a police precinct in Makati where he gave his statement. In open court, witness identified the accused
as the person in short pants who boarded his taxicab.
On cross-examination, this witness stated that he could not
remember the place where he took the accused and his companions; that he did
not notice any confusion at the corner of Buendia and
Superhighway and that he did not hear any shots; that from the time his
passengers boarded the cab until they reached their destination, the light in
his cab was off; and that he did not know to whom his passengers were referring
when one of them said “Tiyak na patay na
iyon, pare.”
Juanita Vda. de Butawan,
widow of the victim, testified, among others, that she made the identification
of her husband’s body at the Funeraria Rizal.
The defense, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of
Abraham Domingo, a Philippine Constabulary Officer with the rank of Captain,
COSAC Battallion, Camp
Crame, Quezon City and of the appellant, Leonides Quinto.
Abraham Domingo testified that from February 1, 1971 up to July
15, 1971, he was the Commanding Officer of the COSAC; that he knows the
appellant who was one of the members of the First COSAC Company; that due to
the fact that at that time, the COSAC was newly organized, they were short of
firearms and he gave verbal orders to his supply officer not to issue
firearms except for actual missions; that before a member could be issued a
firearm, he had to have a mission order; that on March 5, 1971, Leonides Quinto asked him for
permission to see one of his informers that night, and permission was granted
but no mission order was given; and that no firearm was issued to the appellant
because meeting an informer does not require the issuance of firearm. On cross-examination, this witness stated
that Quinto told him that he was meeting an informer
to secure more information on the purported smuggling of blue seal cigarettes.
Appellant Leonides Quinto
testified in his behalf, stating that as member of the Intelligence Division
of the Philippine Constabulary First COSAC Company, he is charged with the duty
of apprehending smugglers. On April 30, 1971, at about 9:00 A.M., he met a certain informant by the
name of “Boy” at Port Area, Manila
who tipped him of the forthcoming landing of smuggled goods. As the information was incomplete, they agreed
to meet again at the corner of Buendia
Avenue and South Superhighway on the night of the
same day. He reported the matter to
Capt. Domingo who gave him verbal authority to proceed with his plan. He arrived unarmed at the meeting place at 11:15 P.M., instead of the agreed time which
was 10:00 P. M. because he happened
to fall asleep in his room at the camp.
He failed, however, to meet his informer. Upon reaching the Topside Kitchenette, he
peeped inside. At the door two armed men
in fatigue uniform carrying armalites collared him
but when he identified himself as a PC sergeant, he was allowed to leave, after
they identified themselves, saying that they were members of a task force. He then returned to his camp. At the time, he was unarmed and was wearing a
checkered polo jack and a pair of green long pants.
He further denied that he entered the Topside Kitchenette at
about 8:30 P.M. on April 30, 1971. He reiterated his claim that he neither shot
nor participated in the shooting of the victim, Pat. Jaime Butawan.
The trial judge, however, gave more weight and credence to the
testimony of Caridad Pasco rather than to those of
the defense, and found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder and imposed upon him the penalty of death. The trial judge said:
“* * * It was not established who fired the first shot but it
is incontrovertible that accused Leonides Quinto fired his gun at the deceased, this much was
testified to by eyewitness Caridad Pasco, who at the
time was only two-arms length away from the door of the restaurant. Butawan, although
wounded, was able to draw his gun before falling to the ground mortally
wounded. Pat. Fernandez, seeing the
unevenness of the fight, although already wounded, was able to run away. One of the accused was heard to say, ‘Patay na iyan,’
referring to Pat. Jaime Butawan, Leonides
Quinto said ‘May mga tao pa ba diyan?’,
apparently referring to Fernandez and other possible eyewitnesses to the
cold-blooded killing of Butawan.
“When the group believed that there were no eyewitnesses to
the killing, they then made good their escape.
“Conviction or acquittal of the accused hinges on whose
witnesses are more credible and trustworthy, that of the prosecution or the
defense. The prosecution’s quest for
conviction depends on the reliability of Caridad
Pasco, who has positively identified the accused as having shot the victim in
this case, plus the corroborative testimony of taxi driver Rodino
Hidalgo. Against this prosecution evidence is the
defense of denial and alibi interposed by the accused. Prosecution witness Caridad
Pasco identified the accused as one among several persons who shot the victim
in this case. The testimony of this witness
appears to be voluntary and straightforward in character. So also, from the records no evil motive was
presented by the.defense to show cause why Pasco
should falsely testify against Quinto. Adding strength to the cause of the
prosecution is the corroborative testimony of Rodino
Hidalgo that the accused in this case was among his passengers during that
fateful evening of May 1, 1971 that flagged his cab at Buendia-Superhighway,
Makati, Rizal, and that he
overheard the accused Quinto whom he identified in
court as having said, ‘Tiyak na
patay na iyan, pare.’
“On the defense of denial and alibi made by said accused, the
same cannot be, given much weight because it has not been established by
sufficient and convincing evidence. It
is undisputed that alibi or denial is the weakest of all defenses and that the
same should not be given consideration if the identity of the accused has been
established by a credible witness (PP vs. Ubaldo, et
al., L-19490, Aug. 26, 1968, pp. 144-175).
So also, for this kind of defense to prosper, it is necessary that the
one invoking it must show by clear and convincing evidence the physical
impossibility on his part to commit the crime imputed against him (PP vs. Condemena, L-22426, May 29, 1968, pp. 388400). In this particular case, the accused claimed
that at the time of the commission of the crime he met his informer at the
corner of Buendia and South Superhighway, this being
the case, he has all the chances and time therefore to perpetrate the crime
imputed against him. This story of his
is a telltale version, a concocted scenario as a last ditch effort to evade
criminal liability. The court is amused
also to note that this alleged informer of his was not presented in court, if
only to corroborate his story.
* * * * * * * * *
“Treachery qualifies the crime to murder. The prosecution also has successfully proven
the generic circumstances of taking advantage of superior strength, with insult
to the public authorities and use of motor vehicle. There being no mitigating circumstance to
offset the aforesaid generic circumstances, the Court has no alternative except
to impose the supreme penalty provided for by law.
“Everything considered, the Court gives more credence to the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which are more believable, logical and
more in the realm of possibility, rather than the testimony of the witnesses
for the defense.”
On appeal to this Court, appellant assails the credibility of the
lone eyewitness, Caridad Pasco, on the ground that
under the circumstances narrated by her, she could not have seen that it was
the appellant who fired the shots at the victim. He likewise avers that the trial court
committed an error in not having acquitted him on the ground of reasonable
doubt, and in not having given credence to his defenses of alibi and denial.
Acting Solicitor General Hector C. Fule
filed the brief for the People of the Philippines,
recommending that the accused be acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not
been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The
Brief for the Appellee states, in part:
“Analyzing the above evidence, it is obvious that no witness
other than Caridad Pasco implicated appellant in the
crime charged. However, we find the
testimony of this prosecution witness contradicted by her own sworn statement
given to the Makati Police on September 24, 1971 and presented in this case as Exh. ‘1’ for the defense, that she did not see who shot at Butawan. We quote:
‘T. Nakita mo ba kung sino ang bumaril
kay Butawan?
S. Hindi po, pero nakita ko si
LEONY QUINTO na tiningnan niya ang kanyang
tauhan at pinaikutan na sina Butawan
at Fernandez.’ (p. 166, rec.)
“If Caridad Pasco had in fact seen
appellant fire at Butawan, as she insisted during the
trial, there was no reason for her to answer in her statement just quoted that
she did not see Butawan’s gunman. On this score alone, Pasco’s
pretense of having identified appellant as the assailant must necessarily
fall. Her explanation, when asked why
she did not tell the police during the investigation that she saw Quinto shoot Butawan, that
‘Because I forgot to tell that I saw him as the first one who shot Butawan‘ (p. 14, t.s.n., Dec. 20,
1971), appears puerile and incredible and thus reduces her to the category of a
non-reliable, untrustworthy witness.
‘Moreover, Pasco’s
narration in her said statement of the circumstances surrounding the shooting
indubitably shows that she did not actually see appellant fire at the
deceased. According to said statement,
all she saw of appellant was that he went out of the Cafe with hand placed on
his right waist and after he had gone out, she heard a shot and then a series
of shots, whereupon she dropped to the floor inside the counter. Said narration reads as follows:
‘* * *. Pagkatapos noon ay may pumarang dyip at nakita ko na
lang nakatayo sa harapan ng
TOPSIDE si BUTAWAN at si
FERNANDEZ at sinita niya iyong isa na
naka sibilyan na may ARMALITE na nakatayo doon sa
harapan ng TOPSIDE, maya-maya ay umalis iyong kausap ko
at may inabot kay FERNANDEZ
na kapirasong papel. Pagkatapos noon
ay pinaligiran na nitong mga naka-fatigue
at iyong ibang naka-sibilyan sina BUTAWAN at
FERNANDEZ at sila po ay nakorner na sa
may pader sa tagiliran ng TOPSIDE. Pagkatapos noon ay
nakita ko na si LEONY QUINTO na lumabas at nakahawak
sa kaniyang kanang baywang at nang nasa labas
na LEONY ay nakarinig ako ng isang
putok at pagkatapos po noon ay sunod-sunod na putok na
ang narinig ko at ang ginawa ko naman po ay dumapa ako sa loob ng counter. Pagkaraan ng putukan,
siguro po mga singko minutos
na ang nakakaraan
ay narinig ko si LEONY QUINTO na nagsalita ng ‘MAY MGA TAO BA PA
DIYAN’, at pagkatapos po noon ay tumakbo na siya at may hawak-hawak pa siyang baril.’ (p. 166 rec.; Italics supplied)
“It thus becomes clear that Pasco’s
identification of appellant at the trial as the one who fired a shot at the
deceased patrolman is but a product of her imagination. The action of appellant in going out of the
Cafe with hand placed on his right waist, which Pasco claims in her above
statement to have observed does not justify the inference that he was the one
who fired the shot at the deceased, especially if we consider the fact that, as
testified to by her, appellant’s companions who were already outside the Cafe
carried armalites.
“Other circumstances which nurture serious doubt on the
opportunity of prosecution witness Caridad Pasco to
positively identify the culprit in this case are the following:
“1. Pasco herself admitted that the shooting
occurred outside the Topside Cafe while she was inside said establishment (pp.
17, 18, t.s.n., Dec. 20, 1971), and the record does
not show how she was able to see what was happening outside from inside the
Cafe where she was. Even assuming that
she could see through the walling of the Cafe because of an open door or glass
door or wall (which was not established), it was not shown that the place
outside the Cafe was well lighted enough so as to enable her to fix the
identities of the persons therein situated, it being already midnight at the
time of the shooting.
“2. It taxes credulity that Pasco was able to
determine that it was appellant who fired the first shot at Butawan
when according to her, appellant’s companions, who had armalite
rifles in hand and who were then being accosted by the deceased policeman and
his companion, also surrounded the two police officers. Anyone of appellant’s companions armed with armalite rifles could very well have fired at the
deceased. This is apparent from the
testimony of medico-legal officer Mariano Cueva to
the effect that the two small bullets recovered in the body of the victim were
of .22 caliber and possibly fired from an armalite
firearm (pp. 23, 31, Dec. 20, 1971).
“3. It is surprising that although Caridad Pasco, together with the Cafe owner Rosie Ortiz,
was brought to the Police headquarters shortly after the shooting, where she
was practically detained until the following morning and consequently
interrogated, no statement was taken from her.
This circumstance lends support to our belief that Pasco,
from the very outset and even up to the time she executed Exhibit ‘1’ four
months later, could not really identify the assailant of Pat. Butawan, for which reason the police must have seen no
useful purpose in taking down her statement.
As to why she gave a statement to the police on September 24, 1971, or more than four months
later, wherein she still stuck to her original non-identification of the
murderer of Pat. Butawan, Pasco
explained that she did so ‘when Mrs. Butawan took
me.’ (p. 8, t.s.n., Dec. 20, 1971). It could be inferred from said answer,
therefore, that Pasco executed her
statement (Exhibit ‘1’) just to accede to the request of the widow of the
deceased, although she knew nothing about the identity of said deceased’s
killer.”
Believing that “the evidence of the prosecution has failed
to implant in the mind moral certainty that its witness Caridad
Pasco had sufficient opportunity to see and recognize the assailant of
Pat. Butawan
and to positively identify him”, the Acting Solicitor General recommended
the acquittal of the accused.
We find that the evidence does not show to a degree beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant.
It should be recalled that the shooting in this case took place not
inside but outside of the Top side Cafe.[1]
It is also important to note that when the shooting took place, Caridad Pasco, the only alleged eyewitness, by her own
admission, was inside the said Café pertinent portions of her court
testimony are quoted below:
“Q. This
shooting incident happened outside of the Topside Cafe, is it not?
A.
Right in front.
Q.
And you were inside or outside?
A.
I was inside.
Q.
And so when you dropped to the
floor, you did not see what was going on because of the wall?
A. After the shooting, I saw him when I went to
the window.”[2]
According to her, she dropped down and
lay face down on hearing the first gunshot fired on the night in question. She remained lying face down during the
successive shots which followed.
“Q. Then
what happened?
A.
After the letter was returned, I
don’t know what was that, there was one gunshot. So I lay face down because I was afraid
then. Then there were successive shots
at Butawan.
After the shots somebody shouted, ‘patay na iyan.’
Q. Did you see who is
that somebody who shouted?
A. I just heard it because I was lying down.”[3]
By her admission also, Caridad Pasco did not see the armed group run away; much
less did she see the vehicle they used, as she stood up only after
they had fled from the scene of the crime.
“Q. Where
did Quinto and his companions go?
A. I did not see them when they ran because I was lying down.
* * * * * * * * *
Q. Did you see them ride a vehicle?
A.
I don’t know what Vehicle they
rode.
Q.
After Quinto
and his group fled, what did you do?
A.
I stood up. I was the only one in the Top Side
Cafe.”[4]
“Q. And so when
you dropped to the floor, you did not see what was going on because of the
wall?
A. After the
shooting I saw him when I went to the window.”[5]
It is true that on cross-examination she testified that she saw appellant
shoot the victim before she went down on the floor, but this statement appears
to be only an afterthought.
In her sworn declaration given before the Fiscal on September 25, 1971, some three months
before she testified in this case, Caridad Pasco
declared positively that she did not see the person who shot at the
deceased. Thus, she stated unequivocably and in no uncertain terms, viz.:
“Hindi ko nakita nang barilin sina
Butawan at Fernandez.”[6]
Indeed, how could Caridad Pasco have seen the appellant
shoot the deceased on the night in question when, according to her own
admissions, she was inside the Topside Cafe, and on hearing the first shot
fired, she dropped down on the floor, lay face down, was lying down during the
successive shots which followed as she was afraid, and stood up only after
the armed group had fled from the scene of the crime for which reason she did
not see them run away nor the vehicle they took in their flight? It is important
to note that this sworn statement of September
25, 1971 was the first declaration regarding the incident of May 1, 1971. Caridad
Pasco, together with Rose Ortiz, owner of Topside Cafe, was taken to the
municipal building of Makati
for investigation. They stayed there
until the following morning, but Caridad Pasco did
not give any statement allegedly because Ortiz did not allow her to do so,
saying that she would be the one to give the statement.
It is significant that in the instant case, there is no evidence
tending to show conspiracy. In the
absence of conspiracy, it is necessary to prove who shot and killed the victim,
as mere presence of the accused at the scene of the crime, in the company of
others, among whom could have been the culprits, does not establish criminal
liability. It is settled that where
conspiracy is absent, each of the accused is responsible only for the consequences
of his own act.[7]
In the instant case, the nature and extent of appellants participation, if any,
in the acts leading to the commission of the felony has not been established by
the evidence for the prosecution.
Considering the foregoing, even the testimony of the taxi driver
to the effect that appellant was among those who boarded his cab under highly
suspicious circumstances does not shed light on the question of whether or not
appellant was one of those who shot and killed the victim.
It cannot even be definitely concluded from this witness’
testimony in open court and his statement before the police that it was
appellant who pointed a gun at him while riding his cab. Thus, when he was asked how many minutes
appellant pointed the gun at him, he answered, “I just felt that the gun
was poked.”[8]
In his statement (Exhibit “D”), he said that he just felt something
poked at his nape and he heard his passengers on the back seat cocking their
guns. Moreover, in this same statement,
he claimed to have seen three long firearms carried by three of the men, but
no mention at all was made of a short firearm which, according to witness Caridad Pasco, was the type of weapon wielded by herein
appellant.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral certainty – a
certainty that satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon
it.[9]
Reasonable doubt, on the other hand, is that “doubt engendered by an
investigation of the whole proof and an inability after such investigation to
let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.”[10]
An examination of the evidence on record in this case fails to
convince this Court that the guilt of appellant Leonides
Quinto has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In view of this, the accused must be
acquitted of the crime charged.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is REVERSED, and
accused LEONIDES QUINTO is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of which he is
charged. He is ordered immediately
released from detention, unless otherwise held for some other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos,
Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, Makasiar,
and Abad
Santos, JJ., no part.
[1] t.s.n,, p. 17, Session of December 20, 1971.
[2] Ibid.,
pp. 17-18.
[3] Ibid.,
p. 6.
[4] Ibid.,
pp. 6-7.
[5] Ibid.,
p. 18.
[6]
Exhibit “1”; t.s.n., p. 13, Session of December 20, 1971.
[7] People
v. Cajandab, L-29598, July 26, 1973, 52 SCRA 161.
[8] t.s.n., p. 39, Session of December 20, 1971.
[9] People
v. Lavarias, L-24339, June 29, 1968, 23 SCRA
1301.
[10] People
v. Alipis, L-17214, June 21, 1965, 14 SCRA 297.