G.R. No. 118331 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RODRIGO AGSUNOD, JR. Y BIBAY, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the court finds accused Rodrigo Agsunod, Jr. y Bibay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua together with the accessory penalties provided for in Art. 41 of the Revised Penal Code and to pay the heirs of Rodolfo Sebastian a civil indemnity of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos and to pay the cost." On October 4, 1994, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal [13] from the aforesaid decision. Appellant claims that the trial court gravely erred in: ... CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF MURDER DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. ... GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE CONFLICTING, UNBELIEVABLE, IMPROBABLE, AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES. The resolution of this appeal hinges on the determination of credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Appellant contends that a careful perusal of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses would show these are not only tainted with glaring inconsistencies but are likewise unbelievable and improbable, viz : (1) Reymundo Sebastian testified that when appellant went to their house, he was carrying an armalite. Appellant argues that he could not have carried the armalite, and fire at the victim with the "borrowed" .22 cal. rifle. (2) Purificacion Sebastian could not have identified the type of weapon used in shooting her husband since she did not have any military background; (3) Evaristo Julian testified that appellant's group held hostage his grandchild, but Reymundo Sebastian never mentioned such fact in his testimony. (4) While the Death Certificate of Rodolfo Sebastian was presented in evidence, appellant contends that this merely proved the fact of death, not the cause of death of the victim. (5) While the incident occurred on July 7, 1992, the investigation was conducted only on May 31, 1993. The suspicious delay in reporting the incident to the authorities showed that the prosecution had no concrete evidence against appellant, who was merely a fall guy. The inconsistencies alleged by appellant appear to be more imagined than real. First , a review of the testimony of Reymundo Sebastian does not disclose that appellant was carrying an armalite rifle when he shot the victim with the .22 cal. rifle of Evaristo Julian. It was actually the companions of appellant who were carrying the armalite rifles. Purificacion Sebastian corroborated Reymundo's observation that appellant was armed with a .22 cal. rifle while the other five companions of appellant were armed with armalite rifles. [14] Second , Purificacion Sebastian already explained that she was familiar with firearms because military soldiers often dropped by their house. [15] Third , Evaristo Julian's testimony regarding the holding of his grandchild as hostage by appellant and his companions had no bearing on the killing of the victim, but in fact showed that Evaristo was coerced by appell