PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROSALITO MOLINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The decision of the trial court in this case is exasperatingly long
and has made no effort to separate the chaff from the grain.  Everything has been indiscriminately dumped
in as into a catch-all.  Even the most
irrelevant and inconsequential details have been recited, to only clutter the
record and befuddle the issues.  Plowing
through it would have been punishment enough for the accused-appellant,
assuming he was guilty.  But the Court
cannot excuse the waste of its valuable time by this extraordinary verbiage.

This case arose from the killing of Pedro T. Ong
on March 17, 1983, at about five o’clock in the afternoon, at Barangay Suklayin, Baler, in the
province of Aurora.  He succumbed almost
instantly to seven bullet wounds found later to have been caused by a single
shot from a 30-centimeter firearm.  In
due time, Rosalito Molina was arrested and charged in
the Regional Trial Court of Aurora with the murder of Ong.  After trial, the accused was found guilty and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua and all
accessory penalties, besides being required to pay a civil indemnity of
P12,000.00 to the victim’s heirs.^[1]

The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of two
supposed eyewitnesses, namely, Felicidad B. Poblete and Rosalinda Libed.  Two other witnesses swore to having seen
Molina near the scene of the crime shortly before it was committed.  The rest of the witnesses for the prosecution
testified only on events that transpired after the killing except that the
victim’s wife also suggested the motive for the crime.

Poblete, a 43-year old laundress,
declared on the stand that in the afternoon in question she took a jeep in
Baler bound for San Isidro, where she was residing.  On the way, four men riding on two
motorcycles (two on each vehicle) signaled the jeep to stop, and she then heard
one of them ask:  “Ano
kaya, mapupuruhan mo?” to
which another replied, “Purong-puro.” (This
translates to “Can you make a direct hit?” “Sure.”) Three of the men then
boarded the jeep while the fourth man, whom she later identified as Molina, left by himself on his
motorcycle, proceeding ahead of them along the same road.^[2]

Continuing, this witness swore that as they neared the chapel
along the street, she saw Ong, who was wearing “a
striped T-shirt, maong pants, shoes, socks and a
wrist watch.” Suddenly a shot rang out and Ong fell
to the ground.  Almost in the same
instant, she also saw Molina hiding behind a balibago
tree on the other side of the street about five meters diagonally from Ong.  Molina was
wearing short denim pants and a jacket and carrying a long shotgun with his
right hand.  According to her, the jeep
then stopped in front of the NGA warehouse and minutes later Molina tapped her
on the back and said to her, “What you saw, you just saw.” She did not reply
because she was frightened.  The jeep
thereafter resumed its trip and she got off at San Isidro.^[3]

Upon arriving home, she narrated her experience to her husband,
who said nothing.  Later she reported the incident to the
provincial governor’s wife, for whom she was doing some laundering, and Mrs. Etcubañez advised her to inform the authorities.  She talked to Mrs. Ong
and later to the police, identifying the accused-appellant as the killer.  She was later approached by several persons
who tried to dissuade her from testifying against Molina.^[4]

Libed was a 16-year old high school
student who said she was walking home from school that afternoon of March 17, 1983, when she saw Molina
hiding behind the balibago tree on the left
side of the street.  She looked away
because she thought he was urinating. 
Shortly thereafter, she heard a shot and almost at the same time she saw
Ong on the other side of the street clutching his
chest and slowly collapsing.  She
immediately ran to him and found he was no longer breathing, whereupon she
rushed to the Molina house nearby from which five men came out, including the
accused-appellant.  She added that at the
precise time of the shooting she saw a yellow jeep passing by with a woman
seated in front and three male passengers behind.^[5]

This witness also declared that at about eight o’clock that same evening, while she was lying in her
bed, somebody entered her room and pointed a 30-centimeter shotgun at her
throat.  The man said, “Nene, close your mouth. 
Do not interfere so there will be no trouble.” He then left.  She recognized the intruder as Molina, who
was still in the denim shorts and jacket he was wearing earlier in the
afternoon.^[6]

Mrs. Sisenia Ong
testified that there was bad blood between her husband and the
accused-appellant because Ong had imputed the theft
of one of his gamecocks to Molina’s barkada.  Reports of his suspicion reached Molina, who
resented it.  She also said that on
another occasion the Molina family approached Ong as barangay captain about the squatters on their land but he
merely advised them to go to the Bureau of Lands.  She also spoke vaguely of a lawsuit in which
her husband and some members of the Molina family were involved.^[7]

For his part, the accused-appellant offered the defense of alibi
and claimed he was in Manila at the
time of the commission of the crime.  He narrated
his movements from the day he left Baler on March 13, 1983, until his return from Manila
on March 19, 1983, and
presented several witnesses to corroborate his testimony.^[8]
Focusing on the afternoon of March 17, 1983, he described how he went to his
cousin’s office at Pacific Engineering Co., Inc. in Makati,
where he signed the logbook, a photocopy of the pertinent page of which he
submitted as an exhibit.^[9]
From there he proceeded to another office, the First Holdings International,
where he was interviewed and tilled up some forms in connection with his
application for employment abroad.  It
was only on March 19, 1983,
at half past six o’clock in the
morning, that he and his wife boarded a PNR bus in Tutuban
station and headed for Baler, where they arrived at about two o’clock in the afternoon.^[10]

The trial court rejected the alibi, describing it as fabricated,
and refused to believe the defense witnesses on the ground that, as relatives
of the accused or employees of his cousin who exercised much influence over
them, they had testified only to help Molina. 
His documentary evidence was dismissed as “unverifiable.” The trial
judge also speculated that it was not impossible for Molina, considering his
good physical condition, to have used his motorcycle or a private car in going
to Baler from Manila to commit the
crime and then returning to Manila
that same night of March 17, 1983,
after warning Libed. 
The distance between Baler and Manila
was only 232 kilometers and could have been negotiated by him in 5 to 6 hours.

The Court has examined
the evidence of the parties and finds that even if the alibi were correctly
rejected, the conviction of the accused-appellant would not necessarily
follow.  We have repeatedly stressed that
the prosecution must depend on its own strength instead of relying merely on
the weakness of the defense, as it seemed to be doing here.  While it is not certain in the case at bar
that Molina is innocent, it is not certain either that he is guilty; and the
rule is that it is innocence, not guilt, that is presumed.

The testimony of the principal witnesses is in some parts too pat
to be convincing and in other parts just plainly unbelievable.  Assuming that Poblete
and Libed are credible witnesses without any known
motive against Molina, we feel that such credibility is not sufficient by
itself alone for it is necessary as well that their testimony itself be
credible.  In our view, their statements
on the stand suffer from serious flaws that have raised grave doubts about the
guilt of the accused-appellant.

For one thing, the Court finds it too much of a coincidence that
at the precise time that Ong
was shot, both the girl Libed and the yellow jeep in
which Poblete was riding just happened to be passing
by.  The timing is too perfect to be
believable.  Or maybe it was
imperfect.  For, indeed, one may well
wonder why the killer should be so reckless as to choose that precise moment to fire the shot that would kill Ong
when Libed and the persons in the jeep would easily
and surely see him.  That is unnatural
and irrational.  Unless he was extremely
stupid, the killer would have waited for a few minutes at least, after both the
jeep and the girl had passed, before firing the fatal shot.  No one could then have seen him in flagrante delicto.  Yet, as the prosecution would have the Court
believe, the accused-appellant decided at that exact moment, when he was in
plain view of Poblete and Libed,
to pull the trigger and kill Ong.

For another, there is the strange conversation that took place
within hearing of Poblete, as if it had been intended
for her ears.  The men freely talked of
the crime about to be committed as if it were the most innocuous and innocent
subject in the world.  Poblete did not say that they even lowered their voices or
whispered to each other so she would not hear what they were saying.  They talked as if there were no other persons
around.  Yet, as the prosecution would
put it, they were plotting death.  These
men were talking of a killing to be accomplished within minutes, and yet they
were so mindless, or so brazen, that they did not care who heard them.

There is still another thing that puzzles the Court and that is
what happened to the other motorcycle.  Poblete said the four men came on two motorcyles,
with two on each vehicle, and that later, after their conversation, three men
boarded the jeep while Molina went alone on one of the motorcyles.  So what happened to the second
motorcycle?  Poblete
was sure it was not loaded on the jeep,^[11]
which could simply mean it was left behind in that deserted street.  A valuable vehicle abandoned just like
that?  Did the three men simply donate it
to any lucky finder or was this piece of testimony another concoction?

Poblete also testified that after the
shooting of Ong, the jeep where she was riding
stopped, although she gave no reason why. 
Molina approached to warn her not to talk and then left, ignoring the
other passengers.  She did not say that
the accused-appellant also threatened the driver, who also saw what she saw and
was apparently not part of the plot like the other three passengers
behind.  It was important for Molina to
warn not only her but also that driver; yet she said he talked only to her.

Significantly, the police never located that driver although he
was driving a passenger jeep
plying that regular route.  The man
simply vanished.  It is also strange that
the other three persons in the jeep were also never found although Poblete says she used to see them in the motorpool in Baler and could identify them if she saw them
again.^[12]
The yellow jeep has itself also disappeared without a trace.

In other respects, Poblete’s testimony
also fails under scrutiny.  Although she
said she usually took a tricycle to and from Baler, it just so happened – again
– that on that particular date and at that particular time, she took a jeep^[13]
that, coincidentally enough, as it turned out later, would be passing by as
Molina shot Ong in front of the chapel.  Asked if it was a passenger jeep, she said
she did not know although she took it just the same and was admitted as a
passenger.^[14]
She said she had never seen that yellow jeep before (and curiously, as earlier
noted, it has never been seen again).  It
is also significant that when asked on cross-examination if she had ever
testified in court, Poblete categorically replied she
had never done so.^[15]
Confronted with contrary evidence, however, she admitted having appeared in
three court cases, in two of which she was in fact the accused.^[16]

As for Libed, the most striking part of
her testimony is her sworn story of Molina’s nocturnal visit and of the armed
warning he made in her bedroom.  Just
like in the movies, this is simply too exciting for words.  But levity aside, it is not easy to believe that just anybody, least of all an
armed stranger, can freely enter a young lady’s bedroom – and at night, at that
– especially as there were other persons in the same house who could have seen
him.  It was only eight o’clock then; the household was presumably still
awake.  One might rightly say that this
kind of incident just does not happen in a Filipino home, especially in the
province, and particularly in the small house where Libed
was living.

If the Court is skeptical of this tale, it is because Libed is not a convincing enough witness, what with the
other flaws in her declarations.  Her
answers are too glib, as if she had been rehearsed, as when she was asked by
the prosecutor why she was testifying and she replied:  “First, I would like justice to prevail.  Second, I received a subpoena, sir.”^[17]
It is especially noteworthy that when she gave her statement to the police on
March 22, 1983,^[18]
she said she saw no one besides Ong
that afternoon before he was shot, making no particular mention of Molina.  Asked to explain this omission, she said she
was confused when she gave that statement although it was all of five days
after the killing, when she would have already collected her thoughts.  On the stand, she was relating an entirely
different story, emphasizing how she saw Molina hiding behind the tree and
later running away after the shot that killed Ong was
fired.  Libed
also insisted that no one had talked to her before the hearing about the
testimony she was going to give, not even Mrs. Ong or
the prosecutor, whom she was evidently intending to surprise with her
revelations.^[19]

Given all these suspicious statements from the two principal
witnesses for the prosecution, the Court hesitates to accept the judgment of
conviction pronounced by the trial court. 
Even the reasons suggested by Mrs. Ong do not
seem to be serious enough as to have provoked the murder of her husband by the
accused-appellant.  The prosecution has
in our view not established that quantum of proof needed to overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence.

We feel that the trial judge’s obsession for details, including
the most trivial, has prevented him from seeing the bigger picture and arriving
at the correct conclusion.  He could have
been more perceptive and judicious rather than merely reportorial.  The decision would have been less ponderous with the elimination of such inconsequentials as the following turgid paragraph and
other similar statements that have contributed absolutely nothing to Philippine
jurisprudence:

Delfin Malibago,
who was riding with his wife on their service motorcycle from their farm in Zarah, San Luis, Aurora to their home in Suklayin, met at the curve where palay
was being dried near the ricemill of Calabuanan Barangay Captain Ramon
Flores the blue long-nose Isuzu truck of Governor Etcubañez
driven by Pedrito who greeted him with his light which he answered with his horn, then
the blue passenger-type Sarao jeep of Dolfo, and lastly the deep red jeep owned by the son of Ang just after the Welcome sign.  When they were opposite Juanito
Flores’ place about 80 meters from the NFA compound, he noticed people running
ahead of them and they stopped opposite the NFA compound.  They proceeded and passed by a person lying
down they did not attempt to recognize. 
When they reached the mango trees at the road going to Setan they heard that Barangay
Captain Ong was the person lying down, they went back, looked at the cadaver and saw it
was indeed him.  There were many people
there among whom was Board Member Dr. Samano.

Trial courts should not merely reproduce everything testified to
by the witnesses no matter how unimportant and immaterial it may be, even if
this might lighten their work.  By such
indolent process, they only complicate and lengthen their decisions, beclouding
and possibly misreading the real issues in their tiresome narration of the
facts, including even those without bearing in the case.  Judges should make an effort to sift the
record and relieve it of all inconsequential matters, to give them a clearer
view of the real questions to be resolved and a better idea of how this
resolution should be done.  In the
decision before us, written single-spaced on 25 legal-size sheets, less than
four pages are devoted to evaluation and analysis, the rest being a recitation
of virtually every single detail, however unimportant, volunteered by the
witnesses.  The larger issues are lost in
the plethora of irrelevancies that evidently have obscured the judgment under
challenge.

At any rate, the Court is not prepared to affirm the decision not
because it is long and convoluted but because the prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.  The inherent incredibility of witnesses Poblete and Libed has sown the
seeds of suspicion that the evidence against Molina has been fabricated, and
rather awkwardly at that.  The
convergence of events in this case is, plainly, too coincidental to deserve
belief and the other improbable declarations of the government witnesses have
added to that disbelief.  The defense of
alibi may be weak, and perhaps it was really Molina who killed Ong, but the prosecution has failed to prove the
accused-appellant’s guilt and so he must go free.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED and the
accused-appellant is ACQUITTED.  No
costs.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1] Rollo, p. 37. 
Decision penned by Judge Ernesto P. Valencia.

^[2]
TSN, May 18, 1983, pp. 3-5.

^[3] Ibid.,
pp. 7-11.

^[4] Id.,
pp. 11-13, 34-36.

^[5]
TSN, May 31, 1983, pp. 4-13.

^[6] Ibid.,
pp. 14-15.

^[7]
TSN, May 19, 1983, pp. 6-9.

^[8]
TSN, January 12, 1984, pp. 3-13.

^[9] Ibid.,
pp. 7-9.

^[10] Id.,
pp. 10-13.

^[11]
TSN, May 18, 1983, p. 17.

^[12] Ibid.,
p. 16.

^[13] Id., p. 38.

^[14] id.,
pp. 36-37.

^[15] id.,
p. 30.

^[16] id.,
pp. 30-32.

^[17]
TSN, May 31, 1983, p. 17.

^[18]
Original Record, p. 8; Exhibit “3.”

^[19]
TSN, May 31, 1983, pp. 26-28.