EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
139670
January 21, 2002
-versus-
AHMAD LANGALEN Y
DEMALEN A.K.A. "KUMANDER KAMLON,"
HASIM UPAM Y
ABUBACAR,
SAMSUDIN TALIB Y LIMBA,AND
ABUBAKAR DAGADAS
y ANGGUBALA,
Accused-Appellants.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
DAVIDE,
JR., C.J.:
Under automatic review
is the decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 18, in Criminal
Case
No. 95-145780, finding accused-appellants Ahmad Langalen y Demalen
(hereafter
AHMAD), Hasim Upam y Abubacar (hereafter HASIM), Samsudin Talib y Limba
(hereafter SAMSUDIN) and Abubakar Dagadas y Anggubala (hereafter
ABUBAKAR)
guilty of violation of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as
the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974, and sentencing
them
to suffer the penalty of death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The accusatory portion
of the information[2]
in Criminal Case No. 95-145780, under which accused-appellants were
tried
and convicted, reads as follows:
That at about 3:15 o'clock
[sic] in the afternoon of September 8, 1995 along Palacio and Orosa
Streets,
Intramuros, Manila, a street or road used by persons or vehicles for
movement,
circulation or transportation of persons, goods or articles, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
together
with MOHAMAD MAMISON whose case is still pending preliminary
investigation
with the Department of Justice, and other persons whose identities are
still unknown and are at large, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping one another, with intent to gain, did then and there,
willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack with firearms the four (4) vehicles
convoy
which were then traveling towards the general direction of Ermita,
Manila
and which occupants were then carrying money owned by
proprietors/owners
of VMG Money Changer amounting to Fourteen Million Seven Hundred
Thousand
(P14,700,000.00) Pesos, more or less, (Philippine Currency) and
thereafter
carted away said money contained in two (2) duffle [sic] bags and one
(1)
paper bag and on the occasion of such robbery, three (3) persons were
killed
and several others injured.cralaw:red
No bail was recommended
for the temporary liberty of accused-appellants.cralaw:red
Upon their arraignment
on 25 October 1995, accused-appellants entered a plea of not guilty and
waived their right to a pre-trial. On even date, they filed a motion
for
bail on the ground that the evidence against them was weak. No action
thereon
was taken by the trial court. Trial on the merits proceeded on various
dates.cralaw:red
The trial court summarized
the evidence for the prosecution as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The record shows that
on September 8, 1995, at around 3:00 p.m. a convoy of nine male
employees
and/or private security guards of VMG Money Changer, which holds office
in Ermita, Manila, together with two police escorts, SPO2 Romeo and
SPO3
Ricardo Gonzales, were on board four cars travelling southward along
Palacio
Street. Loaded in the lead car driven by Zeny Santillan with Dante
Castro
and Gilbert Yu as passengers were two leather bags and one paper bag of
money in the total sum [sic] of P13,600,000.00. The money was earlier
withdrawn
from the Metrobank (P7,000,000.00) and the Equitable Bank
(P6,600,000.00)
in Binondo, Manila. Of the three occupants of the lead car, only Castro
was armed with a .45 cal. pistol.cralaw:red
On nearing the intersection
of P. Burgos and Gen. Luna Streets, the convoy stopped, because the
traffic
lights [sic] turned red. At this point, several men in fatigue uniform
with bonnets covering their faces, (only their eyes and noses were
exposed)
and armed with rifles and handguns, suddenly appeared and fired at the
convoy. Castro was able to return fire and so did the two police
escorts.
Later, Castro and his companion jumped from their car to seek cover
across
the street, but while running, Castro sustained gunshot wounds in his
right
thigh and left buttock, which rendered him unconscious for a few
minutes.
SPO3 Gonzales, who was inside the last car of the convoy, died on the
spot
due to gunshot wounds, while SPO2 Romeo suffered gunshot wounds in his
right thigh, right leg and right armpit. Two other members of the
convoy,
Tiborcio Tomas and Tony Diquit also suffered gunshot wounds. The gunmen
swiped the P13,600,000.00 from the lead car of the ambushed convoy and
drove away in their vehicles.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[National Bureau of
Investigation] Agent Moises Tamayo was assigned to investigate the
robbery.
On September 10, 1995, Hasam Mohammad was introduced to Agent Tamayo by
the latter's friend, Allan Sulaybar. Mohammad revealed that his
common-law
wife, Halina Gulam, knew some of the people involved in the robbery. On
September 15, Agent Tamayo met Gulam, who confided to him that Mohammad
Mamison was one of those involved in the robbery and she executed a
written
statement on the matter, Exhibit "1". On the basis of this information,
the NBI procured a search warrant from Hon. Executive Judge William
Bayhon
of the RTC of Manila, against Mamison and raided his house on No. 158
24th
Avenue, Rembo Fort Bonifacio, Makati, on the early morning of September
19, 1995. The NBI operatives led by Atty. Artemio Sacaging did not find
any illegal firearms in the house of Mamison, but nevertheless invited
the latter to their office for investigation. And after about three
hours
of questioning and friendly persuasion by Agent Tamayo, Senior Agents
Serafin
Gil and NBI Special Investigators Gregorio Tumagan and Rene Sagun,
Mamison
finally admitted in the presence of his lawyer, Atty. Perfecto Caparas,
and wife, Normina Kamid, his participation in the robbery and
implicated
the four accused as among those involved. And the declaration of
Mamison
was reduced into writing, Exhibit "B".cralaw:red
On September 22, 1995,
the NBI operatives armed with a search warrant, raided the house of
Accused
Ahmad Langalen on RIN, Maharlika, Taguig, Metro Manila, where the
operatives
found and confiscated one .38 cal. revolver; one .45 cal. pistol, (both
unlicensed), and live ammunitions for the two handguns. The four
accused,
Langalen, Upam, Talib and Daganas, who were all in the house of accused
Langalen at the time of the raid, were arrested for illegal possession
of firearms. At the NBI Headquarters, the four accused were positively
identified in a police line- up by Mamison as participants in the
robbery,
and in connection therewith, Mamison executed a supplemental sworn
statement,
Exhibit "C".cralaw:red
In the trial of the
case, Mamison, who is in the custody of the NBI under the witness
protection
program, was presented as a prosecution witness. He affirmed the
truthfulness
of the two sworn statements he had given to the NBI, Exhibits "B" and
"C",
and he declared that he is from Cotabato City, Mindanao, where he was a
farmer before he took up residence in Metro Manila. From his testimony,
the court has gathered that on September 8, 1995, at around 8:00 a.m.,
Mamison visited Accused Langalen (alias Kumander Kamlon) at the
latter's
house in Taguig, Metro Manila. The two have known each other for a long
time when they were both residing in Cotabato. Mamison asked Accused
Langalen
for a loan of P100.00, but he rejoined that he has [sic] no money and
suggested
that Mamison instead go with his (Langalen's) men who were about to
leave.
Mamison asked Accused Langalen where his men were going, but he was
told
by the latter to just go with his men and he (Mamison), would later
know
their destination. Wanting to earn some money, Mamison accepted the
offer
of Accused Langalen and boarded an owner type jeep together with
Accused
Upan, Langalen and Daganas, and two other men, Nortin Ismael and
Ibrahim
Usman. Mamison saw Accused Talib board an L-300 Van together with [the]
other men of accused Langalen. Except (for) Mamison who is [sic] to act
as look out, the men in the jeep were all equipped with firearms.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On reaching Intramuros,
Mamison was made to get off from the jeep at a street corner near the
Round
Table Restaurant on Gen. Luna Street. Accused Upam instructed Mamison
to
inform them if he would see [sic] any policeman. Thereupon the jeep
parked
20 meters away where the L300 Van later followed and also parked.
Mamison
saw the occupants of the jeep and the L-300 Van get off from the
vehicles
armed with handguns and rifles. Then suddenly he heard rapid gunfire
and
he saw his companions shooting at the occupants of the convoy of four
cars
that were on standstill. Alarmed and scared, Mamison ran to the
direction
of the City Hall, where he boarded a passenger jeepney and went home.[3]
The trial court did
not recount the testimonies of the other witnesses for the prosecution,
nor did it consider the testimonies of some defense witnesses. This
decision,
consisting of slightly more than four (4) pages, is perhaps one of the
shortest ponencias we have reviewed where the death penalty has been
imposed.
This is rather lamentable in light of the gravity of the offense
charged
and the number of witnesses presented by the prosecution and the
defense.cralaw:red
We are thus constrained
to painstakingly examine and assess the evidence the parties presented
and offered. In the process, and for moral certainty, we deem it
necessary
to summarize the testimonies of the other witnesses in the case at bar.cralaw:red
Witness Luis Gelvez
was a bank representative of Montes Moveo Corporation. Among his duties
was to withdraw money from the bank. In the afternoon of 8 September
1995,
he was with his co-worker Bong Canapi, and he was instructed to
withdraw
P7,000,000 from the Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank)
and
P1,000,000 from the Citytrust Banking Corporation, both at the Plaza
Lorenzo
Ruiz branch in Binondo, Manila. Canapi was tasked to withdraw
P6,600,000
from the nearby Equitable Bank & Trust Company (Equitable Bank).
After
these transactions, Gelvez informed his office that the money was ready
for pick-up at Metrobank. He eventually turned over the P8,000,000 to
Dante
Castro and Gilbert Chua, his co-employees who met him at the bank. He
remained
in the bank to settle the balance of the office account. In the
meantime,
Canapi confirmed that the P1,000,000 he withdrew from Equitable Bank
had
also been handed to Castro and Chua. The entire collection was to be
delivered
to the VMG Money Changer branches at M.H. del Pilar Street, Ermita,
Manila
and Dian Street, Makati.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Gelvez called up his
wife, the cashier of VMG Money Changer, to inquire if Castro had
already
arrived. Instead, she asked where he was since she heard from the
office's
two-way radio that there were fatalities. He and Canapi immediately
proceeded
to the VMG Money Changer. On the way, they encountered heavy traffic
near
the city hall. He told Canapi to check the situation while he opted to
park the car and walk toward Intramuros. There he saw the convoy of
four
cars used by Castro. All four vehicles were riddled with bullets and
the
police were already at the scene of the incident. He immediately
checked
the compartment of each car and discovered that all the money was gone.
He also saw the dead body of their police escort inside a vehicle.
There
were five others who were wounded, all members of the convoy team. From
there, he went back to the VMV Money Changer.[5]
Witness Dante Castro,
a member of the security force of the VMG Money Changer, testified that
he was at their office in the afternoon of 8 September 1995 when he
received
a call from Luis Gelvez, who instructed him to fetch the money the
latter
had just withdrawn. Along with ten companions in a convoy of four cars,
they proceeded to Metrobank, Binondo branch, where Gelvez was waiting.
He received the money contained in a knapsack and a brown paper bag and
kept it inside the car compartment, before proceeding to the Equitable
Bank to get the money withdrawn by Bong Canapi. On their way back to
the
office, while waiting for a green light at the corner of P. Burgos and
Palacio Streets in Intramuros, he saw at least four men in green and
brown
fatigue uniforms who suddenly fired at them with their rifles. He
immediately
took cover under the dashboard of the car, opened the door, and
returned
fire, hitting one of their assailants. Before he ran out of bullets, he
saw three other men in fatigue uniform and wearing bonnets. He reloaded
his gun then jumped out of the car to seek cover, but he was hit in the
right thigh, which rendered him unconscious.[6]
The money Castro collected
from Gelvez and Canapi allegedly amounted to P15,000,000, which were
stored
in two bags and a paper bag. The two bags were kept in the car's
compartment
while the paper bag was hidden under his seat. The entire collection
was
taken by their assailants. He also learned that their police escort,
SPO3
Ricardo Gonzales, died on the spot, while another police escort
received
three gunshots wounds. One of their drivers was also injured. He
categorically
denied that any of their assailants were inside the courtroom. Neither
could he identify them as their faces were concealed.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Witness Senen Santillan,
a driver at the Montes Moveo Corporation, recalled that in the
afternoon
of 8 September 1995, he was assigned to drive for Castro and his
companion
to Binondo. A convoy of four cars left the office and proceeded to
Metrobank,
Binondo branch. Castro and his companion alighted to go inside the bank
and they returned after a couple of minutes with Castro toting a bag.
He
was told to open the compartment of the car, where Castro placed the
bag.
They proceeded to Equitable Bank, where the two obtained another bag,
which
was also placed in the car's compartment. Before boarding the car,
Castro
also received from a bank representative a paper bag which he placed
beside
his leg. On their way to Ermita, they were ambushed. He saw four men
get
off a green car in front of them. The men, wearing green fatigue
uniforms
and bonnets, immediately fired at them. He dove for cover, alighted
from
the car, and crawled under it. The gunfire went on for about five
minutes.
After the shootout, he saw that some of his companions had been
wounded.
He also discovered that the money was gone. However, he denied if he
could
still identify the malefactors.[8]
Witness PO3 Rodolfo
de Castro was in the vicinity of the incident when he heard the
gunshots.
At the scene of the shootout, he saw a man in a long-sleeved brown
barong
tagalog armed with a baby armalite. They exchanged fire. He described
the
suspect as between 40 and 45 years old, about 5'6" and 150 pounds, with
fair complexion and chinky eyes. The suspect escaped in a red car,
which
he chased in vain. He was certain that there was no owner-type jeep or
L-300 van involved in the shootout.[9]
Witness SPO3 Pio Inocencio
was another policeman who arrived at the crime scene after the
incident.
He saw four cars parked one after the other, all with multiple bullet
holes.
In the last car was an unidentified person, who apparently died on the
spot. His team made an ocular inspection, took pictures and gathered
available
evidence for laboratory analysis. Investigation revealed that the
suspects
used four cars. He prepared a police report and a sketch[10]
of the crime scene. Altogether, he submitted five progress reports[11]
on the case.[12]
The gist of the testimony
of Mohammad Mamison is contained in the factual findings of the trial
court
which was earlier quoted.cralaw:red
Witness Moises Tamayo
was the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent who took the
statement
of Mohammad Mamison in relation to the incident of 8 September 1995,
after
the NBI assumed jurisdiction over the investigation of the case and
Mamison's
involvement therein was determined. Tamayo was able to persuade Mamison
to give a statement with the assistance of counsel, whom Tamayo
recommended.
Mamison eventually signed two sworn statements which also bore
counsel's
signature, where he identified accused-appellants as the perpetrators
of
the crime under investigation. Subsequently, AHMAD's home was raided,
resulting
in the confiscation of unlicensed .38 and .45 revolvers and ammunition.
Accused-appellants were eventually arrested and were properly
identified
by Mamison.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On cross-examination,
Tamayo admitted investigating a certain Halima Gulam a week after the
shootout.
She had informed him that the participants of the crime were Mamison,
Datu
Jimmy and Datu Aries. Accused-appellants were apparently never
mentioned
by her. She had also disclosed that on the day after the shootout,
Mamison
returned to his residence carrying a large brown envelope. Accordingly,
Gulam overheard Mamison and his companions discussing the division of
their
loot. He also confirmed that during his investigation, Mamison never
mentioned
the names of accused-appellants.[14]
In the course of the
trial, accused-appellants moved for the inhibition of Presiding Judge
Perfecto
A. S. Laguio, Jr., whom they accused of being biased against people
charged
with theft and robbery. They alleged that the questions he addressed to
the witnesses were primarily aimed at assisting the prosecution and
securing
the accused-appellants' conviction. Under the circumstances they could
not be afforded a fair trial. The trial court, however, denied the
motion
for lack of merit.cralaw:red
After the presentation
of the evidence for the prosecution, accused-appellants filed their
demurrer
to evidence, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the
identity
of the perpetrators of the crime and that the testimony of state
witness
Mohammad Mamison was not credible as to warrant their conviction. The
trial
court likewise denied the same for lack of merit.cralaw:red
On the other hand, accused-appellants
all raised the defense of alibi and established the following facts:
AHMAD was the administrator
of a mosque in Bicutan, Taguig. In the afternoon of 8 September 1995,
he
went to Union Bank, United Nations Avenue branch, Manila, to deposit
P40,000,
representing the church collection. He arrived at 2:30 p.m. and stayed
until 3:20 p.m. He presented the bank's copy of the deposit slip[15]
made in his name and under Savings Account No. 002-103895-8. The lower
portion of the deposit slip bore the bank's machine validation imprint
"08SEP95 14:38:09." After making the deposit, he exchanged pleasantries
with Reynaldo Bandali, Union Bank Assistant Vice-President, as was his
habit whenever he visits the bank. Thereafter, he went home, arriving
thereat
at 5:00 p.m.[16]
AHMAD acknowledged that
HASIM and ABUBAKAR are his relatives, whereas SAMSUDIN was a complete
stranger
to him. On 22 September 1995, he, HASIM and ABUBAKAR were arrested at
his
home and brought to the NBI for investigation. It was there that he
first
met Mamison, who identified them as the perpetrators of a robbery
committed
in Intramuros, Manila, on 8 September 1995. His second and last
confrontation
with Mamison was on the day the latter testified against them in court.
He did not know Mamison and he had no misunderstanding with him, so
there
was no reason why Mamison would implicate them in the crime.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
AHMAD's testimony was
corroborated by Reynaldo Bandali, Assistant Vice President of Union
Bank.
Bandali joined the bank in 1990 as the bank's overseas remittance
manager.
In the afternoon of 8 September 1995, he was in the bank's United
Nations
Avenue branch, Manila. He had just come from a meeting at about 2:30
p.m.
when he saw AHMAD waiting by his office. AHMAD sought his assistance in
making a deposit since the queue was long. He accommodated AHMAD's
request
and even entertained him in his office. AHMAD left the bank at about
3:20
p.m. He confirmed the bank's copy of the deposit slip[18]
for that particular transaction. He gave said copy to AHMAD's nephew
upon
learning that AHMAD was accused of the robbery that occurred that same
afternoon. He knew that it could help AHMAD prove his innocence.[19]
Accused-appellant HASIM
was a security guard employed by the Action Force Security Agency. From
1993 to 1995 he was assigned at the Manila Galleria Suites, located at
the Ortigas Center, Pasig City. On the day of the incident in question,
he was on duty, signing in at 6:00 a.m. and only leaving at 7:30 p.m.
Officer-in-Charge
Pepito Alapatin, Chief Security Conrad Banal, Security Inspector Harold
Garcia as well, as his co-security guard Nicanor Armisa saw, him on
duty
that whole day. He acknowledged that AHMAD is his uncle, with whom he
lived.
As to state witness Mamison, he admitted that he had known him for
about
a year since Mamison used to live with his uncle. They never had any
misunderstanding
with him, so he cannot explain why he was linking them to the robbery.[20]
The testimony of HASIM
was confirmed by Pepito Alapatin, Harold Garcia and Nicanor Armisa.cralaw:red
In the afternoon of
8 September 1995, Alapatin was at the Manila Galleria Suites to inspect
the security force of which HASIM was a member. He was certain that
HASIM
was at his post of assignment as his duty was from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m.
on 8 September 1995. It was routine for the security force to assemble
30 minutes prior to the assumption of their duty to verify their
attendance.
On the date in question, HASIM was present for the assembly.[21]
As Internal Security
Officer of the Manila Galleria Suites, Harold Garcia was tasked to
inspect
every two hours if the guards were at their posts. HASIM was among the
guards detailed at the hotel. Garcia attested that on 8 September 1995,
HASIM arrived at the hotel before 7:00 a.m. in time for the assembly
briefing
of the security force. He was certain that between 3 and 4 in the
afternoon,
HASIM was at his post at the guest floor level after conducting his
routine
inspection. HASIM left the hotel only after 7:00 p.m. He distinctly
recalled
that day because when he learned from the news that HASIM had been
arrested,
he knew it was impossible for him to have been involved in the crime
because
HASIM was on duty the whole day of 8 September 1995. HASIM continued
reporting
for work until the time of his arrest on the third week of September.[22]
On cross-examination,
Garcia declared that it was impossible for HASIM to have left his post
without the knowledge of hotel personnel. He explained that apart from
the two-hour routine inspection he conducted, each guard was required
to
make a personal call every fifteen to thirty minutes to the security
office.
A missed call would alert the security office for an immediate
investigation.
In addition, roving guards of the hotel conducted supplementary
inspection.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nicanor Armisa, a house
detective of the Manila Galleria Suites, affirmed that HASIM was in
Levels
23 and 24 of the hotel the whole day of 8 September 1995.[24]
Accused-appellant ABUBAKAR,
a resident of Taguig, was a water delivery boy for the mosque in their
neighborhood. He lived with his uncle AHMAD. HASIM is also his uncle.
At
about the time of the shootout in Intramuros, he was in the mosque with
other churchgoers. On 22 September, he was arrested by NBI agents for
his
alleged involvement in a recent hold-up. At the NBI headquarters, he
was
identified as one of the perpetrators of the crime by Mamison, a
stranger
as far as he was concerned. He could not offer any reason why Mamison
would
accuse him of a crime. He denied the accusation but he later opted to
keep
quiet after he saw one of his companions being kicked by the agents.[25]
He recalled that AHMAD left the house at around 2:00 that afternoon and
returned only at about 6:00 p.m.[26]
The defense presented
Mosaydin Mamalangakay, Abdul Sisay and Kutin Gudal, barangay officials
and neighbors of ABUBAKAR, to corroborate the latter's alibi.[27]
On the other hand, accused-appellant
SAMSUDIN testified that he was playing basketball in his hometown in
Maguindanao
in the afternoon of 8 September 1995. Among the spectators were
Barangay
Captain Oti Lumpaw and a teacher, Zainudin Ampang. On 17 September
1995,
he made his first trip to Manila. He presented an Aboitiz Superferry
ticket[28]
issued in his name and dated 17 September 1995. The ship left in the
morning
of said date and arrived in Manila on 19 September. Five days later, he
was arrested in his aunt's home in Taguig and brought to the NBI for
his
alleged participation in a robbery committed on 8 September 1995 in
Intramuros,
Manila. It was there that he first met the rest of accused-appellants.[29]
Zainudin Ampang,[30]
a public high school teacher and resident of Maguindanao, corroborated
SAMSUDIN's testimony. SAMSUDIN was his neighbor. In the afternoon of 8
September 1995, he saw SAMSUDIN playing basketball at the plaza. There
were about a hundred spectators then. Even in the succeeding days he
would
see SAMSUDIN playing basketball at the plaza. He denied knowing the
other
accused-appellants.[31]
After the defense rested
its case, the trial court rendered its decision[32]
on 4 August 1999, the decretal portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, this Court
finds the accused, Ahmad Langalen y Demalen, Hasim Upam y Abubacar,
Samsudin
Talib y Limba and Abubakar Daganas y Anggubala, guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of the crime of highway robbery under PD 532 and are hereby
sentenced
to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection. The four accused
are
also ordered to pay the legal heirs of SPO3 Ricardo Gonzales death
compensation
and moral damages in the respective sums of P50,000.00 and P500,000.00,
and P13,600,000.00 actual damages to the owner/s of VMG Money Changer
with
interest thereon at the legal rate from the filing of this case on
October
16, 1995 until fully paid.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court gave
credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Mamison, who testified
in a "straightforward, positive and credible" manner. It further held
that
no improper motive could be ascribed to him to falsely testify against
accused-appellants. On the other hand, it rejected the latter's defense
of alibi because it could not prevail over the positive testimony of
Mamison.
Finally, the trial court opined that conspiracy among
accused-appellants
was properly established when they left together in Taguig and
proceeded
to Manila to commit the heist.cralaw:red
The case is now before
this Court for automatic review, pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659.cralaw:red
In their Appellants'
Brief, accused-appellants raise the following errors allegedly
committed
by the trial court:
I. IN FINDING
THAT THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION'S SOLE "EYE-WITNESS" MAMISON, AS
BEING
STRAIGHT-FORWARD, POSITIVE AND CREDIBLE; AND, THAT, MAMISON HAD NO
IMPROPER
MOTIVE TO FALSELY IMPLICATE THE FOUR (4) ACCUSED-APPELLANTS IN THE
CRIME
CHARGED, OR HATCH UP THE STORY HE NARRATED TO THE COURT;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II. IN NOT APPRECIATING
THE TESTIMONY OF NBI AGENT MOISES B. TAMAYO AND THE AMBUSHED GUARDS
WHICH
CLEARLY CONTRADICTS THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION'S "EYE-WITNESS"
MAMISON;
and
III. IN NOT APPRECIATING
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, CONSISTING OF
NUMEROUS
CREDIBLE WITNESSES WHO ARE OF GOOD REPUTATION, UNQUESTIONED PROBITY,
UNBIASED
AND DISINTERESTED.cralaw:red
Accused-appellants assail
the testimony of state witness as being inconsistent with the
testimonies
of the other witnesses for the prosecution. In fact, it was Mamison who
had a motive in implicating them to the crime. Mamison admitted that he
acted as a look-out. NBI Agent Tamayo, however, testified that based on
his investigation, Mamison was among the plotters of the robbery along
with other named conspirators, none of whom included any of the
accused-appellants.
He also found out that after the shootout, Mamison fled his residence,
and an informant told him (Tamayo) that Mamison and his cohorts were
discussing
in Quiapo the division of some loot. Accused-appellants argue that
Mamison
had to concoct a story and offer himself as a state witness to
extricate
himself from being charged for the offense.cralaw:red
Accused-appellants further
assert that there were other details Mamison mentioned in his testimony
that were in conflict with the testimony of the victims. Mamison
claimed
that the vehicles used by the malefactors were an owner-type jeep and
an
L-300 van; that they were armed with hand guns and one rifle; and that
they were wearing long-sleeved shirts and denim pants.[33]
On the other hand, the victims testified that there were about seven
assailants
who wore black bonnets and fatigue uniforms, all armed with rifles. A
red
car and a green car were used as getaway vehicles. One witness even
positively
declared that none of the assailants was in the courtroom. Another
witness
particularly described a suspect as in his early forties, with a huge
belly,
about 150 pounds, with fair complexion and chinky eyes. He
categorically
denied in the presence of accused-appellants that said suspect was in
the
courtroom.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, accused-appellants
conclude that the glaring inconsistencies between the testimonies of
the
victims and that of Mamison put the latter's credibility in question.
It
was only Mamison who alluded to them as the alleged perpetrators of the
crime. Other than his testimony, no other link was established by the
prosecution
to pin the crime on them. Therefore, accused-appellants invoke an
urgent
need to reexamine the factual findings of the trial court, especially
considering
the penalty imposed.cralaw:red
Finally, accused-appellants
maintain that their defense of alibi was sufficiently established by
the
testimonies of disinterested persons of good reputation and
unquestioned
probity, as well as by the documentary evidence. The inevitable
conclusion
is that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
They must, therefore, be accorded their constitutional right to be
presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved beyond moral certainty.cralaw:red
After a meticulous review
of the records of this case and the evidence presented by the parties,
we are convinced that the prosecution, indeed, failed to prove by the
required
quantum of evidence the guilt of accused-appellants. Thus, we reverse
the
challenged judgment and accordingly acquit them.cralaw:red
It bears emphasis that
of the seven witnesses for the prosecution, only Mohammad Mamison
implicated
accused-appellants to the crime charged. It has long been settled that
when the issue is one of credibility of the witnesses, the appellate
courts
will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, which is in
a better position to resolve the question after actually hearing the
witnesses
and observing their deportment during the trial. This rule, however,
admits
of exceptions, such as when the evaluation was reached arbitrarily or
when
the trial court ignored or failed to appreciate certain facts or
circumstances
of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case.[34]
The exception exists
in this case, and a scrutiny of Mamison's testimony easily confirms it.
He was not a party in the plotting of the heist; he only allegedly
chanced
upon accused-appellants as they were on their way to commit the crime.
He was casually invited by AHMAD to join them although he had no idea
what
they were up to. He was instructed to warn AHMAD of the presence of any
police from where he was dropped off. It was only later he realized
that
accused-appellants waylaid a convoy of vehicles. However, he did not
see
the actual robbery as he immediately fled after hearing the gunshots.
He
was not heard from nor seen again until he was called to an
investigation.
Yet, although he was the first to be investigated of those whom the law
enforcers believed to be the authors of the crime, the information in
this
case, which was filed on 16 October 1995, states that the cases against
"MOHAMAD MAMISON … is still pending preliminary investigation with the
Department of Justice." The records fail to disclose that Mamison was
ever
accused of the crime and later discharged as such on account of his
utilization
as a state witness.cralaw:red
Among Mamison's observations
was that only two vehicles were used by accused-appellants, an
owner-type
jeep driven by AHMAD and an L-300 van. But prosecution witness Senen
Santillan
declared that the four men who ambushed them got off from a green car.
Also prosecution witness Dante Castro described the assailants as
wearing
green fatigue uniforms with their faces concealed by bonnets.
Prosecution
witness SPO3 Pio Inocencio was certain that no owner-type jeep or L-300
van was used in the heist. Finally, Castro and Santillan candidly
testified
that none of those who ambushed them and ran away with the money were
in
the courtroom. When they testified, all accused-appellants were inside
the courtroom.cralaw:red
The foregoing observations
strengthen the defense of alibi put up by accused-appellants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We have time and again
ruled that alibi is the weakest defense as it is easy to fabricate and
difficult to disprove. For alibi to prosper, the accused must
demonstrate
by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for
him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time the same was
committed.
Moreover, it cannot prevail over the positive identification of the
accused.[35]
In the case before us,
accused-appellants, particularly AHMAD and HASIM, had sufficiently
established
that it was impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime
at the time of its occurrence. Their alibi was corroborated by credible
witnesses. Very revealing is AHMAD's alibi that he was at the bank at
the
time of the robbery and shootout. He had the bank's deposit slip[36]
indicating the date and time the deposit was made, which was
strengthened
by the testimony of Union Bank Assistant Vice President Reynaldo
Bandali.
We see no cogent reason why a high-ranking bank official would falsely
testify in favor of an accused. Moreover, no improper motive could be
attributed
to Banaldi.cralaw:red
The same can be said
of HASIM, who was in his work station on the day of the robbery and
shootout.
His superiors attested to such fact. Again, these are disinterested
witnesses
to whom no improper motive could be imputed.cralaw:red
Based on the testimony
of Mamison, it was AHMAD who was the mastermind of and a direct
participant
in the robbery. Yet, based on the evidence on record it is crystal
clear
that the alibi of AHMAD has been sufficiently established. This raises
doubt on the credibility of Mamison. His implication of AHMAD is
definitely
disputable.cralaw:red
Other than MAMISON's
testimony, no other evidence was offered to further demonstrate the
culpability
of accused-appellants. Indeed, we cannot affirm the conviction of
accused-appellants
when their guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On a final note, we
deplore some of the trial court's procedural omissions. There is an
inexplicable
neglect in accounting a thorough summary of the versions of the
evidence
for the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution had seven
witnesses
while the defense had eleven witnesses. Yet, the gist of its
appreciation
of facts of the shootout was primarily dependent on the testimony of
state
witness Mamison. It disregarded certain details declared by the victims
of the shootout which cast doubt on the accuracy of Mamison's account.
Moreover, the trial court peremptorily dismissed the defense of alibi
of
accused-appellants without disclosing that their alibi was corroborated
by several disinterested witnesses. In this regard, the trial court was
either neglectful of its duty or evidently lackadaisical or unmindful
of
the gravity of the offense. The trial court should have been more
diligent
and circumspect in judging this case and meting out the death penalty.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
of 4 August 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18, in
Criminal
Case No. 95-145780, convicting accused-appellants AHMAD LANGALEN y
DEMALEN
a.k.a. "Kumander Kamlon," HASIM UPAM y ABUBACAR, SAMSUDIN TALIB y LIMBA
and ABUBAKAR DAGANAS y ANGGUBALA of violation of Presidential Decree
No.
532, otherwise known as Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of
1974,
is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. They are hereby ACQUITTED of the
crime
charged and ORDERED immediately released from confinement unless their
further detention is warranted by virtue of any lawful cause. The
Director
of Bureau of Corrections is directed to submit a report of such release
within five (5) days from notice hereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo,
Buena,
Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Original Record (OR), Volume II, 189-193; Rollo, 35-39. Per Judge
Perfecto
A.S. Laguio, Jr.
[2]
OR, Volume I, 2-3; Rollo, 9-10.
[3]
Decision, supra note 1, 1-3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, 22 November 1995, 4-11; 29 November 1995, 35.
[5]
Id., 12-19; Id., 10.
[6]
TSN, 14 February 1996, 3-14; TSN, 22 February 1996, 9.
[7]
Id., 12-16; Id., 2-4.
[8]
TSN, 27 February 1996, 3-12, 14-17, 21.
[9]
TSN, 9 November 1995, 3-20.
[10]
Exhibit "F."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Exhibits "H" - "L."
[12]
TSN, 9 October 1996, 4, 6-8, 17-18, 31-32, 36.
[13]
TSN, 7 February 1996, 5-10-12.
[14]
Id., 17-20.
[15]
Exhibit "1," OR, Volume II, 175.
[16]
TSN, 27 May 1998, 3, 6-11.
[17]
Id., 15, 17-18, 20; TSN, 25 June 1998, 25-26.
[18]
Exhibit "1," supra note 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
TSN, 18 May 1999, 3-8.
[20]
TSN, 10 July 1998, 3-10, 16-17, 19-21.
[21]
TSN, 9 September 1998, 3-7.
[22]
TSN, 5 August 1998, 5-12, 15-17, 20.
[23]
Id., 22-23.
[24]
TSN, 9 September 1999, 28-32.
[25]
TSN, 2 December 1998, 2-6, 9.
[26]
Id., 7-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
TSN, 9 December 1998, 3-6, 23-24, 26-32, 51; 25 February 1999, 3-9.
[28]
Exhibit "4," OR, Volume II, 182-A.
[29]
TSN, 27 November 1998, 5-11, 23.
[30]
The TSN misspelled his name as Saynudin.
[31]
TSN, 25 November 1998, 4-9.
[32]
Supra note 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
TSN, 22 August 1996, 3, 6.
[34]
People v. Laceste, 293 SCRA 397, 407 [1998]; People v. Galapin, 293
SCRA
474, 487 [1998]; People v. Villonez, 298 SCRA 566, 580-581 [1998].
[35]
People v. Realin, 301 SCRA 495, 512 [1999]; People v. Tolentino, 308
SCRA
485, 496-497 [1999]; People v. Torio, 318 SCRA 345, 354 [1999].
[36]
Exhibit "1," supra note 15. |