G.R. No. 136741 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. VICTOR AÑORA Y BACALLA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , and in view of the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused in the above-entitled case guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as the same is defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Fernando Lim, Jr. in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs. SO ORDERED . [17] Hence, the present appeal which ascribes the following errors to the trial court: I THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT II THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION'S ALLEGED EYEWITNESS PABLO RICO, JR. III THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE ATTENDANT QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF TREACHERY AND EVIDENT PREMEDITATION (Underscoring supplied) This Court finds that a reversal of the decision on review is in order. Since Rico claimed at the witness stand that he and Niala were only about 8 armslength away from the chapel and they immediately, after hearing the "gunburst," walked towards where it came from, [18] it is incredible why it took them five minutes, after taking merely 10 steps, to reach the spot where appellant and the victim allegedly were. But even assuming that it was only after five minutes that Rico and Niala repaired to where appellant and the victim were, it is improbable that within said span of time, the assailant would still be tucking his gun into his waist and not leave the locus criminis right away, given the fact that there were many houses at the back of the chapel, [19] the curiosity of the occupants of which would likely be aroused. It bears noting that by Rico's claim, soon after the shooting and after he informed the victim's father about it, the latter arrived as did the policemen who picked him up and Niala. Yet it was only after three days that Rico and Niala executed a joint affidavit relating what they claimed to have seen after hearing a "single burst of fire." Just as it bears noting that in said affidavit, Rico and Niala heard only a "single burst of fire" despite the fact that the medico legal found wounds in the victim which were the result of two gunshots ; and that in the same affidavit, Rico and Niala declared that "they came to know" the name of the man who tucked a gun into his waist as Victor Añora, but four and a half years later, when Rico took the witness stand on January 27, 1995, he claimed that prior to the date of the incident, July 22, 1990, he had known and had twice seen appellant "because he (Rico) frequented to (sic) their house because he is a friend of my lady friend." [20] In fine, the alleged facts and circumstances testified on by Rico, if not inconsistent with the joint affidavit h