PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PABLO ADOVISO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Adoviso

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Pablo Adoviso, a prosecution for two counts of murder arising from a single night of gunfire in a barrio in Camarines Sur. The victims were Rufino Agunos, a young man asleep in his grandparents' rice storage hut, and Emeterio Vasquez, his grandfather, who went down the stairs with a lamp and was shot at the stomach. The accused, said to be a member of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit, was charged together with four unidentified persons who remained at large. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the rules on identification through lamplight, the treatment of alibi and denial, the evidentiary worth of a polygraph result, and the essence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance.

Procedural History

Two informations for murder were filed against Adoviso and four unidentified companions before the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur, Branch 31, docketed as two criminal cases, one for the killing of Rufino Agunos and the other for the killing of Emeterio Vasquez. The accused pleaded not guilty to both charges, and the two cases were tried jointly. On the twenty-fifth of March, 1994, the trial court rendered a joint judgment convicting him beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of murder, imposing reclusion perpetua for each count, and ordering him to pay fifty thousand pesos to the heirs of each victim, plus the costs. Adoviso appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and the Court, through Justice Kapunan, affirmed the joint judgment in a decision promulgated in June 1999, with Chief Justice Davide, Junior, presiding, and Justices Melo, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago concurring.

Facts

On the evening of the eighteenth of February, 1990, in Sitio Tan-agan, Barangay Casugad, Bula, Camarines Sur, the spouses Emeterio and Anastacia Vasquez were in their camalig, a rice storage hut where they preferred to sleep because it was cooler. Their grandson Rufino Agunos had already gone to sleep on a bamboo bed in the awning. At around eight o'clock in the evening, Anastacia heard three or four gunshots, and Emeterio uttered that he had been shot. She saw the protruding edge of a gun on the wall near the stairs, but she could not recognize the persons who fired.

Bonifacio Vasquez, the son of the spouses, was in the other house eight meters away. He had just left Rufino asleep and had gone up when he heard the shots. He and his sixteen-year-old son Elmer went down to investigate. Bonifacio hid behind a coconut tree in the dark portion of the yard and, from a distance of eight meters, saw through the bamboo slats of the camalig wall several persons shooting Rufino. By the light of a gas lamp inside the camalig, he recognized one of them, a large-built man with long hair, as Pablo Adoviso, the only assailant not wearing a mask. Adoviso was holding a long firearm wrapped in a sack, its muzzle pointed at Rufino, and fired. When Emeterio came down the stairs carrying a gas lamp and calling out for Rufino, Adoviso fired again, hitting the old man in the stomach. Elmer saw five persons aiming their firearms at the camalig, only Adoviso unmasked, and when Adoviso and a companion by the door saw Elmer, they fired at him, and the group fled toward the banana plantation. Both victims were brought to the Bicol Regional Hospital and died early the next morning of multiple gunshot wounds.

Adoviso interposed alibi and denial. He claimed that at seven o'clock that evening he was in another sitio about a kilometer from the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit headquarters, drinking with companions until around eleven o'clock, and he presented witnesses to corroborate him. He also offered a police certification stating that the shooting was perpetrated by unidentified armed men, and the testimony of a National Bureau of Investigation polygraph examiner that his polygrams showed no specific reactions indicative of deception. In rebuttal, Bonifacio explained that he did not immediately name Adoviso to the police because he was afraid of him, the latter being a member of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit and armed.

Issues

• Whether or not the two eyewitnesses, Bonifacio and Elmer Vasquez, could have positively identified the appellant as one of the killers given the lighting conditions at the scene.
• Whether or not the delay of Bonifacio in revealing the appellant's identity to the police, and his alleged motive to implicate the appellant, impair his credibility.
• Whether or not the appellant's alibi and denial can prevail over his positive identification.
• Whether or not the negative result of the polygraph test should be given weight in favor of the appellant.
• Whether or not the killings were attended by treachery, qualifying them to murder.

Applicable Provisions

Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, defines treachery:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

This provision is the basis for qualifying the killings from homicide to murder, and the Court applies it to the facts of the ambush of the two unarmed and unsuspecting victims.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that visibility is a vital factor in identification, but when conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses do not appear biased, their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted. Illumination from a kerosene lamp or flashlight is sufficient to allow identification of persons, and wicklamps, flashlights, even moonlight or starlight may, in proper situations, be considered sufficient illumination. Here, not one but two gas lamps lit the place, one inside the camalig and one held by Emeterio as he descended the stairs. The Court found puerile the argument that one lamp could not have lighted the place because it was placed inside a can, since the testimony showed the lamp was placed on the floor and the can was placed over it only after the incident. The bamboo slats did not obstruct the view, and the appellant was not a stranger to the eyewitnesses, Bonifacio having known him for ten years and Elmer for four.

On the second issue, the Court held that the failure of a witness to reveal at once the identity of the accused does not affect, much less impair, his credibility, because witnesses react to a crime in different ways and there is no standard form of human behavioral response to a strange, startling and frightful event. Bonifacio's fear of the appellant, an armed member of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit, sufficiently explained the delay. As to motive, the Court found it irrelevant to talk of motive on the part of Bonifacio, since two credible witnesses had positively identified the appellant.

On the third issue, the Court held that alibi crumbles in the face of positive identification, and that for an alibi to prosper there must be proof that the defendant was not only somewhere else when the crime was committed but that he could not be physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. The appellant did not prove physical impossibility, since both sitios are within the same municipality and the distance could be negotiated in thirty-five minutes by vehicle.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that a polygraph has not attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception, and that much faith and credit should not be vested upon a lie detector test as it is not conclusive. The negative result was therefore not given weight.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that treachery qualified the killings to murder, because the attack on an unarmed victim who has not given the slightest provocation was sudden, unexpected and without warning. Rufino was sleeping and Emeterio was going down the stairs when they were shot, totally unaware of an impending assault.

Doctrine

First, identification through lamplight is sufficient where the conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses are not biased; wicklamps, flashlights, moonlight, and starlight may suffice. Second, delay in reporting the identity of an accused does not impair credibility, since there is no standard form of human behavioral response to a frightful event. Third, alibi must be supported by proof of physical impossibility of presence at the scene, and it cannot prevail over positive identification. Fourth, polygraph results are not conclusive and are not accepted to establish guilt or innocence. Fifth, treachery under Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code qualifies a killing to murder when the attack on an unarmed victim who has given no provocation is sudden, unexpected, and without warning.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the joint judgment of the trial court in all respects, convicting Pablo Adoviso of two counts of murder and imposing reclusion perpetua for each count, with the award of fifty thousand pesos to the heirs of each victim and the costs.

Remember This

The one line to memorize is that lamplight is enough for identification when visibility is favorable and the witnesses are not biased, and that alibi crumbles against positive identification. Examiners use this case for the sufficiency of kerosene lamp illumination, the treatment of delayed reporting and polygraph results, and the definition of treachery under Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code.