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

People versus Abaya

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Ramon Abaya, a criminal prosecution for murder. A security guard named Jesus Dapilos was shot in the middle of the night inside the Pennel Commercial compound in Taguig, Metro Manila, and the prosecution said the gunman was Ramon Abaya, a soldier who had been drinking nearby earlier that evening. Abaya denied it and claimed he was four hundred kilometers away in Isabela when the killing happened. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on conviction by circumstantial evidence: on positive identification of the accused at the scene, on the irrelevance of motive when identity is established, and on the weight courts give to alibi that is unsupported and unsubstantiated.

Procedural History

The killing occurred in October 1981, but the murder charge was filed only in January 1984, in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, after an intensive investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation. The trial court, through Judge Alfredo C. Flores, found Abaya guilty of murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity of 30,000 pesos to the victim's heirs, plus the costs. Abaya appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the purely circumstantial evidence against him did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Cruz, affirmed the appealed judgment in its entirety.

Facts

On the evening of October 15, 1981, at about nine o'clock, security guards Jesus Dapilos and Ambrosio Dumaya left the Pennel Commercial 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 a group of men drinking liquor, among them the accused, a soldier, who invited them to join. Dumaya accepted a drink; Dapilos excused himself. As the two walked away, they heard Abaya say to Dapilos, "May araw ka rin," an angry threat.

Two hours later, four shots were fired into the compound, the first two twenty minutes apart and the last two in quick succession. The third hit Dapilos in the arm and lung, and he cried out in pain. Dumaya, awakened by the shots, found Dapilos bleeding, got a flashlight, and focused it outside until he sighted Abaya about ten yards away, furtively looking from left to right as he walked off carrying an armalite, still in fatigue uniform. Dumaya clearly saw his face. Tassara slipped out the back way, rushed to the police station, and returned with six policemen, among them the victim's brother, but Dapilos was already dead. Two empty armalite shells were found in front of the compound, and the autopsy showed death from cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage from the gunshot wounds.

Dumaya came forward only about three and a half months later, after being transferred to the Pennel warehouse in San Marcelino, Manila, where he finally summoned the courage to make a formal statement in January 1982. For his part, Abaya offered alibi: he claimed his first sergeant gave him a vacation and that he stayed in Isabela from October 13 to 18, 1981. But there was no written evidence of any leave, and he presented neither the sergeant nor any relative or friend to confirm his presence in Isabela. The record showed that Abaya, who joined the armed forces in 1974, was discharged in 1982 for absence without leave.

Issues

• Whether or not the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the failure of the prosecution to present other security guards and the drinking companions as corroborating witnesses weakened its case.
• Whether or not the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses destroyed their credibility.
• Whether or not the absence of motive prevented conviction.
• Whether or not the delay of Dumaya in accusing the appellant and the delay of the National Bureau of Investigation in concluding its report cast doubt on the prosecution.
• Whether or not the fact that the presiding judge did not hear the entire trial invalidated his decision.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory text; it applies the settled rules on circumstantial evidence, alibi, and the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and it expressly cites the rule that motive is not necessary when there is positive identification of the culprit. No provision is quoted verbatim in the decision, so none is reproduced here.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the evidence was conclusive enough of guilt. Dumaya did not see the actual shooting, but he categorically declared that he saw Abaya minutes after the shooting walking away from the compound with an armalite in his hand, and this positive identification, taken with the earlier threat and the empty armalite shells, sufficed.

On the second issue, the Court held that it is up to the parties to determine for themselves whether it is necessary to present corroborative evidence or to rely alone on their principal evidence if they believe it sufficient. If the defense felt that the persons not called would contradict or not support the prosecution witnesses, nothing prevented it from calling them as its own witnesses; its failure to do so reflected on its own negligence.

On the third issue, the Court held that minor lapses in the testimony of a witness do not necessarily brand him a liar, as long as the testimony is on the whole consistent and believable.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that motive is not necessary if a positive identification has been made of the culprit, as in this case. It added that the muttered threat, "May araw ka rin," showed that the declined drink was not a light matter but filled the appellant with unreasoning resentment; to Abaya, it was an affair of honor that had to be settled through the muzzle of a gun.

On the fifth issue, the Court accepted Dumaya's explanation that fear of Abaya, who had already shot Dapilos and might do the same to him, kept him silent until he was assigned to Manila, away from the slums where Abaya lived. As for the delay in the investigation, the reason was Abaya himself, who disappeared soon after the killing and could not be questioned by the agents.

On the sixth issue, the Court held that the mere fact that Judge Flores did not preside over the entire trial, having taken over only when the last defense witness was to be presented, did not detract from the validity or correctness of his decision, since the full record was available to him.

Finally, the Court agreed that the killing was murder, qualified by treachery, with no generic aggravating or mitigating circumstance, and it repeated its warning that weapons and wine do not mix well, an admonition especially addressed to soldiers and policemen licensed to carry firearms to protect and not to prey upon the people.

Doctrine

• Circumstantial evidence suffices for conviction when it is consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, and positive identification of the accused at or near the scene, shortly after the crime, carrying the weapon, is strong evidence of guilt.
• Motive is not an element of murder and need not be proved when the culprit has been positively identified.
• Alibi, to be believed, must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene; unsupported alibi cannot overcome positive identification.
• The prosecution is not bound to present every available witness; the defense may call them if it believes their testimony would help.
• Minor inconsistencies in a witness's testimony do not destroy credibility where the testimony is on the whole consistent and believable.
• Delay in reporting a crime and in investigating it does not impair the prosecution where it is explained by fear of the accused and by the accused's own disappearance.
• A judge who did not hear the entire trial may validly decide the case on the full record.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment in its entirety, finding Ramon Abaya guilty of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay civil indemnity of 30,000 pesos to the victim's heirs, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize this line: motive is not necessary when there is positive identification of the culprit. Examiners use this case to test circumstantial evidence, the requisites of alibi, and the rule that the defense cannot complain about witnesses the prosecution did not call when it could have called them itself.