ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 137716. May 17, 1999]
ABERGAS, et al. vs. HEIRS OF PO3 ORSOS & PEOPLE
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 17 1999.
G.R. No. 137716 (Guillermo Abergas, et al. vs. Heirs of PO3 Silvino Orsos and People of the Philippines.)
On July 1, 1993, at around nine o'clock in the evening, PO3 Silvino Orsos was alighting from his car in front of his house at Sampaguita St., Kahilum, Pandacan, when he was gunned down, causing his instantaneous death.
Enrique Gonzales, an eyewitness, gave an account of the incident to the police authorities declaring that on the day of the incident, he was standing at the gate of their compound when the victim (his bother-in-law) arrived aboard his Toyota Corolla; thereafter, he saw Angel Cantos and herein petitioner Guillermo Abergas come out of the latter's house with drawn guns and immediately fire at the victim who had just alighted from his car, three (3) time. This declaration was corroborated by Laila Hong, a sister-in-law of the victim.
On the basis of the sworn statement of the above eyewitnesses, a preliminary investigation was conducted by Asst. City Prosecutor Henry Icay who recommended the filing of an Information for Murder against Angel Cantos and petitioner Guillermo Abergas, but dismissed the case against Zenaida Abergas and herein petitioners Federico Viana and Nilo Cayabyab for insufficiency of evidence.
Thereafter, Cantos and petitioner Abergas filed an urgent motion to re-open the case and admit additional evidence, which motion was initially denied by the Office of the City Prosecutor. But on motion for reconsideration of petitioner Abergas, the case was re-opened and re-raffled to Petitioner emilio Ibanez who subsequently issued a resolution finding prima facie evidence for homicide against Cantos and dismissing the charges against Abergas and the other respondents therein.
The private complainants filed a petition for review of said resolution with the Department of Justice. On November 13, 1995, then secretary of Justice Teofisto Guingona issued a resolution, which reads in part:
"Wherefore, your resolution is hereby modified. You are directed to amend the information in Criminal Case No. 94-139153 from homicide to murder against Angel Cantos and Guillermo Abergas and to include therein Federico Viana and Nilo Cayabyab as accessories to the crime. xxx"
The above resolution was affirmed by the Office of the President through Executive Secretary Ruben Torres; and, likewise by the Court of Appeals.
The sole issue to be resolved n this case is whether or not there exist probable cause to warrant the filing of an information for murder against herein petitioners.
Petitioners cannot contend that there is no prima facie evidence against them; and that they have been falsely accused of a crime they did not commit because of a previous misunderstanding between the prosecution witnesses and the accused.
The petition is devoid of merit.
The Court of Appeals correctly held that in determining probable cause, the average, man weighs facts and circumstance without resorting to the calibration of our technical rules of evidence of which his knowledge is nil. Rather, he relies on the calculus of common sense which all reasonable men have in abundance.
Moreover, a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable case need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.1 [Webb vs. de Leon, 247 SCRA 652.]
In finding the existence of probable cause against the petitioners for the crime of murder, the Department of Justice asseverates, inter alia:
"The positive identification of respondents Guillermo Abergas and Angel Cantos by eyewitness Enrique Gonzales as the ones who shot Orsos cannot be overcome by the defense of alibi invoked by Guillermo Abergas and his witnesses. The delayed statements of the witnesses for respondent Abergas who are his relatives and friends are not worthy of credence. Also the statement of Zenaida Abergas that she saw Orsos draw his gun and afterwards saw him slump to the ground is contrary to human conduct. She made no reference to the fact that Cantos was armed with a gun during his encounter with the victim. Further, respondents' flight from the scene of the crime immediately after shooting is an indication of their guilt.
"We also find sufficient prima facie evidence to indict respondents Federico Viana and Nilo Cayabyab as accessories in the crime of murder, as they, have knowledge of the commission of the crime, took part subsequent to its commission by helping in the escape of Guillermo Abergas and Angel Cantos." 2 [Rollo, pp. 9-10.]
Finally, the guilt or innocence of the petitioners would be best determined, not in the preliminary investigation, but during the trial of the case.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition for review is hereby DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
