PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMON ABAYA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Who shot Jesus Dapilos in the middle of the night?  The prosecution said it was Ramon Abaya, and
the trial court agreed.  Abaya
demurs.  He says he was four hundred
kilometers away when the killing occurred.

The incident happened on October
15, 1981, at about 11 o’clock
in the evening, in Taguig, Metro Manila. 
The trial court found that at 9 o’clock
of that same evening, Jesus Dapilos and Ambrosio Dumaya, security guards at the
Pennel Commercial premises, went out of the compound on orders of their
supervisor, Reynaldo Tassara, to buy a mosquito coil at a store seventy yards
away.  On the way back, they passed by a
group of men drinking liquor.  One of
them was a soldier, the herein accused-appellant, who invited Dapilos and
Dumaya to join them.  Dumaya accepted a
drink but Dapilos excused himself.  As
the two walked away, they heard Abaya say, obviously to Dapilos, “May araw
ka rin.” This was an angry threat.^[1]

Two hours later, four shots were fired into the Pennel compound, the
first two at an interval of 20 minutes and the last two in quick
succession.  The third hit Dapilos in the
arm and lung, and he shouted out in pain. 
Dumaya, who had gone to sleep and was awakened by the shots, got up and
found Dapilos bleeding.  He immediately got a flashlight and focused
it outside in search of the culprit until he sighted Abaya about ten yards
away.  Abaya was furtively looking from
left to right as he walked away carrying an armalite.  He was still wearing his fatigue
uniform.  Dumaya could clearly see
Abaya’s face.^[2]

Meantime, Tessara, who had attended to Dapilos and found that he
needed medical help, slipped out of the compound through the back way for fear he might be attacked if he left by the front
gate.  He rushed to the police station. 
Six policemen, including Dapilos’s brother, accompanied him to the
Pennel compound, but by the time they arrived the victim was already dead.^[3]

Two empty armalite shells were found in front of the compound by
the police investigators.^[4]
The autopsy, on which the medical examiner later testified, revealed that
Dapilos died of cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary
to the gunshot wounds.^[5]

Although the killing happened in 1981, it was only about three-and-a-half months later that
Dumaya came forward to denounce Abaya as
the killer.  Having been
transferred to the Pennel warehouse in San Marcelino, Manila, he finally
summoned the courage to make a formal statement on January 26, 1982,^[6]
and testify later on what happened in the evening of October 15, 1981.

On the basis of this statement, an intensive investigation was
conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation, resulting in the filing of
murder charges against Abaya in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig on January 13, 1984.

Against the version of the prosecution, Abaya offered the defense
of alibi.  At the time of the killing, he
was assigned and billeted at Camp Bagong Diwa, but he claimed that he had been
given a vacation by his first sergeant. 
He had then gone to Isabela, where he stayed from October 13 to 18, 1981.  However, there is no written evidence of such
leave of absence; and no less importantly, Abaya did not present the sergeant
who supposedly gave him the leave or any relative or friend to testify that he
did stay in Isabela on the said dates. 
What the record did disclose was that Abaya, having joined the armed
forces in 1974, was discharged in 1982 for absence without leave.^[7]

In his brief, the accused-appellant argues that the purely
circumstantial evidence submitted against him was not sufficient to establish
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  He
maintains that the prosecution did not present the other security guards and
the supposed drinking companions of Abaya to corroborate the testimony of
Dumaya and Tessara.  It is even suggested
that Dapilos must have been shot by one of his own colleagues in the security
force.  The defense also contends that
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses suffered from many inconsistencies,
let alone the fact that it was inherently unbelievable.

It is up to the parties to determine for themselves whether it is
necessary to present corroborative evidence or to rely alone on its principal
evidence if they believe this to be sufficient.^[8]
If the defense felt that the persons not called by the prosecution would
contradict or at least not support Dumaya and Tessara, there was nothing to
prevent it from calling them as its own witnesses.  The fact that it did not would reflect on its
own negligence unless the accused-appellant was apprehensive that their
testimony would not advance his cause.

As for the claimed inconsistencies, we have repeatedly said that
minor lapses in the testimony of the witness do not necessarily brand him a liar as long as such testimony is on
the whole consistent and believable.

The point is also made that Abaya hardly knew the victim and that
there was no motive whatsoever to link him to the killing.  Even assuming Abaya had offered a drink that
was declined by Dapilos, such rejection could not have
generated the provocation that ultimately led to the murder of Dapilos.

In the first place, motive is not necessary if a positive
identification has been made of the culprit, as in this case.^[9]
While it is true that Dumaya did not actually see the shooting of Dapilos by Abaya, Dumaya categorically
declared that he saw Abaya minutes after the shooting walking away from the
Pennel compound with an armalite in his hand.

In the second place, the muttered threat, “May araw ka
rin” suggests that the incident of the declined drink was not as light as
that but indeed must have filled the accused-appellant with an unreasoning
resentment.  A refusal of an invitation
to drink causes different reactions in different persons.  To some it is a matter lightly dismissed and
instantly forgotten; to others it is a serious affront calling for angry
reprisal.  To Abaya, evidently, it was an
affair of honor that had to be settled through the muzzle of a gun.

The defense also asks why, if the killing occurred in 1981, it
took Dumaya more than three months to make his accusation and the NBI almost
three years before it could conclude its reports.  In the case of Dumaya, as he himself
confessed, the reason was fear of Abaya, who had already shot Dapilos and might
do the same to him.  It was only after he
had been assigned to Manila, away
from the slums where Abaya was living, that Dumaya finally decided to make his
statement against the accused-appellant. 
As for the delay in the investigation of the case, the reason was Abaya
himself, who disappeared soon after the killing and could not be questioned by
the NBI agents.^[10]

The other arguments raised by the defense are, in the view of the
Court, too insubstantial to deserve comment and cannot weaken the finding that
the evidence is conclusive enough of the guilt of the accused-appellant.  And the mere fact that Judge Alfredo C.
Flores did not preside at the trial of this case in its entirety, having taken
over only when the last defense witness was to be presented, did not detract from
the validity, much less the correctness, of his decision.  The full record was available to him.  It is evident from the knowledgeable and
analytical decision he has written that he thoroughly examined the testimonial
and documentary evidence before him and carefully assessed the credibility of
the witnesses with the seasoned perceptiveness he has developed as a trial
judge.

We agree with his decision finding the accused-appellant guilty
of murder, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and sentencing him to
reclusion perpetua, there being no generic aggravating or
mitigating circumstances, plus payment of civil indemnity of P30,000.00 to the
victim’s heirs, and the costs.

The Court repeats its warning that weapons and wine do not mix
well and become a dangerous combination that has often enough resulted in
mindless injuries and, worse, useless loss of lives.  This admonition is especially addressed to
the officers of the law, the soldiers and policemen who are licensed to carry
firearms to protect and not to prey upon the people.  They are seriously advised that when they
take liquor while they are carrying arms, they might be deprived of that proper
control they should always exercise in the use of their weapons, which may then
become irresponsible instruments of destruction.  That is what obviously happened to the
accused-appellant in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED in toto,
with costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

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

Gancayco, and
Griño-Aquino, JJ., on
leave.

^[1]
Exhibit “D,” Original Records, p. 286; Decision, p. 2, Rollo,
p. 20; TSN, November 20, 1985, pp. 13-14; Evaluation and Comment prepared by
the NBI, September 20, 1983, p. 2, Original Records, p. 277.

^[2] Decision,
p. 2, Rollo, p. 20; Evaluation and Comment prepared by the NBI,
September 20, 1983, p. 2, Original Records, p. 277; TSN, November 20, 1985, pp.
24-25.

^[3] Ibid., p. 21; Ibid, p.
278.

^[4] Id.; id.

^[5]
Medico-Legal Necropsy Report dated October
21, 1981, Original Records, p. 273.

^[6]
Exhibit “C,” Original Records, p. 285.

^[7]
Decision, p. 3, Rollo, p. 21; TSN, April 9, 1986, p. 6.

^[8]
People v. Zabala, 86 Phil. 251; People v. Salazar, 58 SCRA 468;
People v. Padrones, 45 O.G. 1359.

^[9]
People v. Sespeñe, 102 Phil. 199; People v. Corpuz, 107 Phil. 44;
People v. Necesuto, 109 Phil. 563; People v. Raquel, 12 SCRA 44;
People v. Bautista, 30 SCRA 588; People v. Tan, 145 SCRA 614.

^[10]
TSN, April 9, 1986, p. 6;
TSN, April 22, 1986, p. 6.