4/29/2021 G.R. No.

136303 - Reader Mode

G.R. No. 136303

Constitution

Statutes

Executive Issuances

Judicial Issuances

Other Issuances

Jurisprudence

International Legal Resources

AUSL Exclusive

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 136303               July 18, 2000

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ANTHONY MELCHOR PALMONES, ANTHONY BALTAZAR
PALMONES, accused-appellants.

DECISION

GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

This is an appeal by accused-appellants Anthony Melchor

Palmones and Anthony Baltazar Palmones from the decision1 of
Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan, Cotabato, 12th
Judicial Region, convicting them of the crime of murder2

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.R… 1/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

The information3 dated June 4, 1997 charging accused-appellants

of the crime of murder reads as follows:

"That in the evening of April 27, 1997 at Barangay Magsaysay,

Municipality of Kidapawan, Province of Cotabato, Philippines, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill, armed with a gun, did
then and there, willfully, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping one another, unlawfully, feloniously and with treachery,
attack, assault, and shot the person of SPO2 ASIM MAMANSAL,
thereby hitting and in icting upon the latter gunshot wounds on the
vital parts of his body which is the cause of the death thereafter.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

Both accused were arraigned on July 15, 1997 and both pleaded
not guilty to the charge against them. Thereafter, trial on the merits
commenced.

The prosecution rst presented Sonny Boy Redovan, a 28 year-old

farmer who was the nephew of the victim. He testi ed that at
around 10:00 in the evening of April 27, 1997, his mother and elder
brother informed him that something had happened to his uncle
SP02 Asim Mamansal. They then rushed to the Kidapawan
Doctor’s Hospital and proceeded to the emergency room. Upon
seeing his uncle, the witness went near him and asked him what
had happened to him. His uncle answered that he had been
waylaid. The witness then asked the victim who the perpetrators
were and the victim answered that it was "Juany and Tony
Palmones" which were the nicknames of the two accused-
appellants.4 He claimed that while he was talking with his uncle,
there were attendants, nurses, and other bystanders whom he did
not know present inside the emergency room. A few minutes after
he talked with the victim, a certain Dr. Aguayo arrived and
examined the wounds of his uncle. About and hour later, he saw
Police Inspector Alexander Tagum arrive and he heard him ask his
uncle who had shot him. The witness then heard his uncle

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.R… 2/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

positively answer the policeman that his assailants were Juany

and Tony Palmones.5

On cross-examination, he testi ed that he was able to talk with his

uncle for about one hour and that the most important part of their
conversation was the identi cation of his uncle’s assailants.6 He
stated that it did not occur to his mind to immediately report to the
police what his uncle had told him as his mind was troubled at that
time. It was only after the burial of his uncle on April 28, 1997 that
he told Insp. Tagum that it was Tony and Juany Palmores who had
shot his uncle.7

The prosecution next presented Dr. Hazel Mark Aguayo who

testi ed that he was the surgeon-on-duty on the day that SP02
Mamansal was shot. He stated that before he operated on the
victim, he interviewed Mamansal and one of the questions he
asked is whether the victim had known who had shot him. He
claimed that Mamansal told him that he did not know who had
shot him.8 He did not pursue this line of questioning further as he
was told by a companion of the victim that the area where the
victim was shot was dark.9 He testi ed that he operated on the
victim at around 12:00 in the evening. He operated for around four
(4) hours but the victim developed cardio respiratory arrest at
around 8:30 the following morning and thereafter, the victim died in
the ward.10

On cross-examination, he stated that it was Sonny Boy Redovan

who was with SP02 Mamansal at the time that he was interviewing
the victim and that it was Redovan who told him that the assailant
could not be identi ed because the area where the shooting
happened was dark.11 He likewise claimed that before he arrived
at the hospital, a certain Dr. Caridad Jalipa was already attending
to the victim and that she told him that the victim remained silent
when she asked him about the person who shot him.12

The third witness for the prosecution was Police Inspector

Alexander Camilon-Tagum. He testi ed that on the night of April

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.R… 3/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

27, 1997, he was at the Kidapawan, Cotabato Police Outpost. After

receiving a radio report, he proceeded to Brgy. Magsaysay,
Kidapawan where he discovered that one of his men, SP02
Mamansal, was shot.13 After conducting an initial investigation of
the crime scene, he sent his men towards different directions to
look for suspects. He then proceeded to the hospital together with
another witness, Alice Villamor. On the way to the hospital, Alice
Villamor pointed to a passing motorcycle and told him that it was
the motorcycle the assailants were riding. He chased the
motorcycle but he was not able to catch up with them as his car
ran out of gas.14 He was able to borrow a motorcycle and he
proceeded to chase the other motorcycle again. While riding on the
borrowed motorcycle, a certain PO3 Aniceta called him on the
radio and told him that the assailants were Juany and Tony
Palmones.15 He and his men proceeded to the residence of the
suspects where the brother of the accused-appellants, Triny
Palmones, met them. He asked Triny Palmones where his brothers
were and the latter responded that he didn’t know. He then asked
Triny Palmones whether his brothers owned a motorcycle and the
latter admitted that they owned a Kawasaki motorcycle which
matched the description of the motorcycle he had been chasing.16
He then told his men to continue pursuing the assailants and after
exhausting all efforts, he proceeded to the Kidapawan Doctor’s
Hospital. He confronted the victim in the emergency room and
asked him about his assailants. The victim answered that it was
Juany and Tony Palmones.17 At that time, he claimed that Dr.
Aguayo and two other medical ladies were inside the room.

On cross-examination, he testi ed that he was able to speak with

Alice Villamor about the incident but that she told him that she was
not able to identify the assailant even though she was right beside
the victim because of darkness.18 He admitted that when he went
to the hospital, he was already entertaining the idea that the
suspects were Juany and Tony Palmones because of the radio call
he received earlier. He likewise admitted that the only question

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.R… 4/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

which he asked the victim was "who shot you?" and that he was
not able to reduce his ndings to writing.19

The next witness for the prosecution was Mila Arimao Mamansal,
the wife of the victim, who testi ed mainly on the expenses she
incurred because of the death of her husband. She also stated that
she was able to talk with witness Sonny Boy Redovan at the
hospital but the latter did not tell her anything about the alleged
assailants of her husband. It was only on April 29, 1997 that she
heard Redovan tell the Chief of Police of Kidapawan that Juany and
Tony Palmones were the ones who had shot her husband.20

The prosecution next presented Asmyra Mamansal, the daughter

of the victim. She testi ed that on the night of the incident, she was
at her aunt’s house where she was informed about the shooting of
her father. She immediately proceeded to the hospital where she
saw her father lying on a bed calling her name. Her father then told
her to take down the name Alice Villamor whom she knew as the
name of her father’s mistress.21 She was able to talk with her
father for about thirty minutes.

On cross-examination, she testi ed that in the course of her

conversation with her father, her father did not tell her the reason
why he mentioned the name of Alice Villamor nor did he tell her
about the persons who had shot him.22

The other two witnesses of the prosecution identi ed the death

certi cate23 of SPO2 Mamansal and the extract of the police
blotter24 where the shooting incident was recorded.

For their part, accused-appellants presented ten (10) witnesses to

support their case.

The rst witness, Alex Siago, a barangay kagawad, testi ed that he

was one of the rst persons to go to the victim after the latter was
shot.25 He stated that a certain Patricio Fuertes and Samuel
Angelio then brought the victim to the Kidapawan Doctor’s
Hospital. Thereafter, another kagawad, a certain Gregorio Lonzaga
chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.R… 5/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

called up the police to report the incident.26 A few minutes later,

Inspector Tagum arrived and proceeded to make an investigation
of the incident. He also claimed that he was the one who lent Insp.
Tagum his motorcycle when the latter gave chase to another
motorcycle bearing two passengers.27 Considering that he was
only ve (5) meters away from the motorcycle when it passed by,
he was able to see the faces of the passengers and he was certain
that they were not the two accused-appellants.28

The next witness, Patricio Fuertes, testi ed that he was person

who brought the victim to the hospital.29 At the hospital, he saw
three policemen, whom he did not recognize, talking with the
victim. He was about a meter away from the bed of the victim
when he heard a policeman, ask Mamansal whether he had
recognized who had shot him. He then heard the victim reply that
he did not recognize his assailants.30 He likewise told the court
that while he was bringing the victim to the hospital, he was not
able to talk with Mamansal and neither did the victim identify his
assailants.31

The next witness for the defense was Alicia Villamor, the alleged
girlfriend of the victim and his companion at the time he was shot.
She testi ed that in the evening of April 27, 1997, she was in her
store together with the victim. At around 10:00 p.m., she closed
shop and went home together with Mamansal and her two
helpers.32 While they were already near her house in Magsaysay,
someone suddenly shot Mamansal. She was just at the side of
Mamansal when the shooting happened but she claimed that she
was not able to identify the assailants as it was dark.33 Patricio
Fuertes then brought the victim to the hospital but she did not
accompany him as her clothes were stained with blood. After
changing her clothes, a group of policemen arrived at the crime
scene. After conferring with the policemen, she then rode with
Insp. Tagum in going to the hospital.34 On the way, Insp. Tagum
tried to halt a passing motorcycle. When the passengers of the
motorcycle kept on going, Insp. Tagum red warning shots and

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.R… 6/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

gave chase but the car they were riding in ran out of gas. He then
saw Alex Siago provide Tagum with a motorcycle and again the
latter gave chase.35 She claimed that she was not able to see the
persons riding the motorcycle as it was moving quite fast. When
she nally arrived at the hospital, she saw that Insp. Tagum was
already there. She was then able to talk with the victim who told
her that he did not see the person who had shot him.36

The next witness, Rommel Arambala, a 27 year old neighbor of

Alive Villamor, corroborated the testimonies the three previous
witnesses.

The defense also called the two accused-appellants to support

their defense of alibi.

Accused-appellant Anthony Melchor Palmones testi ed that at the

time of the incident, he was in his house in Kisulan, Sultan Kudarat,
having a drinking session with friends. He estimated that Kisulan,
Sultan Kudarat was at least two hours away from the scene of the
crime.37 Their group started drinking at around 8:00 in the evening
and they only nished drinking at around 11:00 p.m. By 11:30, their
group had already dispersed.38 He admitted knowing the victim as
a policeman in Kidapawan but he denied having a quarrel or a
grudge against him.39

The testimony of accused-appellant Anthony Melchor Palmones

was corroborated by witnesses SPO1 Ramil Bahian and Jolito
Silva.

For his part, accused-appellant Anthony Baltazar Palmones

claimed that at the time of the shooting of Mamansal, he was at
his house in Datu Piang St., Kidapawan, Cotabato, having a drink
with a few friends. He stated that on the day of the incident, at
around 5:00 p.m. of April 27, 1997, he was resting inside his home
as he had just come from work. While in his house, Rodolfo
Barrientos arrived to borrow some money from him.40 After giving
him the money, the accused asked Rodolfo Barrientos to stay for

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.R… 7/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

dinner and to have some drinks. While they were drinking "tuba,"
Jerry Barrientos arrived and joined them. They only stopped
drinking at around 11:00 p.m.41 The accused likewise testi ed that
he only knew the victim’s surname and that he did not have any
quarrel with or grudge against the victim in the past.42

On cross-examination, he denied that he drove a motorcycle to

work. He admitted however, that during the drinking spree, he went
out of his house to buy "tuba" from a nearby store.43 On re-direct,
he stated that the store was only 10 to 15 meters away from his
home and that he was only gone for 2 to 5 minutes.44

Accused-appellant Anthony Baltazar Palmones’s testimony was

corroborated by Rodolfo Barrientos and Jerry Barrientos who both
claimed that they were drinking with accused-appellant at the
latter’s home at the time of the incident.

On May 8, 1998, the trial court rendered its questioned decision

nding accused-appellants guilty of the crime of murder. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads, as follows:

"WHEREFORE, prescinding (sic) from the foregoing facts and

considerations, the Court nds both accused Anthony Melchor
Palmones and Anthony Baltazar Palmones guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, as principal of the crime of Murder, hereby
sentenced (sic) both accused each to suffer the penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Asim Mamansal,
the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs."

Accused-appellants led a Motion for Reconsideration45 of this

decision but the trial court, in an Order dated 26 October 199846 ,
denied the same for lack of merit. Hence, this appeal where
accused-appellants raise the following assignment of errors:

I.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED

NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.R… 8/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANTS BASED ON THE WEAKNESS OF THEIR DEFENSE.

III.

THE FACTS, AS ESTABLISHED BY ALL THE EVIDENCE

PRESENTED DO NOT SUPPORT THE LOWER COURT’S FINDING
OF GUILT.

IV.

THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED A PALPABLE ERROR AND HAD

DEMONSTRATED CLEAR BIAS AND PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF
THE PROSECUTION AND AGAINST THE ACCUSED.

V.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND

CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF SONNY BOY REDOVAN AND
INSPECTOR ALEXANDER TAGUM.

VI.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE VICTIM, ASIM

MAMANSAL WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY HIS ASSAILANTS BEFORE
HE DIED.

VII.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE ALLEGED

DYING DECLARATION OF ASIM MAMANSAL AS AN EXCEPTION
TO THE HEARSAY RULE.

VIII.

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.R… 9/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE ALLEGED

DYING DECLARATION OF ASIM MAMANSAL AS PART OF THE
RES GESTAE RULE.

The O ce of the Solicitor General ("OSG"), for its part, led a

Manifestation in Lieu of Brief47 where it recommended that the
accused-appellants be acquitted of the crime charged against
them. In this Manifestation, the OSG reasoned that the identity of
the assailants was not su ciently established by the evidence of
the prosecution and that the trial court erred in admitting the
alleged dying declaration of the victim as an exception to the
hearsay rule.

From the records of the case, the conviction of the two accused-
appellants was based largely on the alleged dying declaration of
the victim made to two witnesses of the prosecution and the
apparent weakness of their defense of alibi. It behooves us
therefore to determine the admissibility of the alleged oral dying
declaration of the deceased Asim Mamanal as testi ed to by
prosecution witnesses Sonny Boy Redovan and Police Investigator
Alexander Tagum.

As a rule, a dying declaration is hearsay, and is inadmissible as

evidence.48 This is pursuant to Rule 130, section 30 of the Rules of
Court which states:

Sec. 30. Testimony generally con ned to personal knowledge;

hearsay excluded. – A witness can testify only to those facts which
he knows of his own knowledge; that is, which are derived from his
own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.

There are several exceptions however to the rule of inadmissibility

of hearsay evidence, the rst one of which is the admissibility of
dying declarations given under the circumstances speci ed in
Section 31, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

Sec. 31. Dying declaration. – The declaration of a dying person,

made under a consciousness of an impending death, may be
chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.… 10/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

received in a criminal case wherein his death is the subject of

inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances
of such death

As such, the requirements for the admissibility of an ante mortem

statement are: (a) it must concern the crime and the surrounding
circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) at the time it was made,
the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death; (c)
the declarant was competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration
was offered in a criminal case for murder, murder or parricide win
which the decedent was the victim.49

As testi ed to by prosecution witness Sonny Boy Redovan, the

supposed dying declaration of the victim was made as follows:

PROS. DE GUZMAN:

Q: Did you reach the Kidapawan Doctor’s Hospital, Inc.?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What did you discover?

A: Upon arrival, I immediately proceeded to the emergency room.

Q: What did you do in the emergency room?

A: I saw my uncle there lying.

Q: Are you referring to SPO2 Asim Mamansal?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What did you do after that?

A: Upon seeing his condition I went near him and whispered "Ano
ba ang nangyari sa yo?" meaning "What happened to you?"

Q: What was the answer, if any?

A: His answer (sic) that he was waylaid.

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.… 11/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

Q: What else did he tell you?

A: I was worried after saying those words, I asked him who are the
perpetrators.

Q: What was the answer?

A: And he said "It’s Juany and Tony Palmones."

Q: When those words uttered to you (sic) where there other

persons inside the room?

A: Attendants, nurses, "ususero," I do not know the others.50

In a similar vein, Police Investigator Alexander Tagum likewise

testi ed that the victim named the two accused as his assailants
prior to the victim’s death. Thus:

Q: What did you do at the Kidapawan Doctor’s Hospital?

A: I immediately went to the room wherein SPO1 Mamansal was

lying.

Q: What did you do while you were inside the room where SPO1
Mamansal was lying?

A: I immediately confronted him sir and immediately asked the

question: Who shot you?

Q: What was the answer?

A: SPO1 Mamansal answered sir, it is Juany and Tony Palmones.

XXX

Q: Can you remember who were your companions (sic) inside the
room where SPO2 Mamansal was lying?

A: I noticed two (2) ladies medical orderly (sic) and Dr. Aguayo.51

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.… 12/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

In cases where an alleged dying declaration is sought to be

admitted, it must be proven that that the declaration was made
"under a consciousness of impending death" which means simply
that the declarant is fully aware that he is dying or going to die
from his wounds or injuries soon or imminently, or shall have a
complete conviction that death is at hand, or there must be "a
settled hopeless expectation."52

In the instant case, it was not established by the prosecution that

the statements of the declarant concerning the cause and
surrounding circumstances of his death were made under the
consciousness of impending death. No proof to this effect was
ever presented by the prosecution. It was not shown whether
Sonny Boy Redovan or Inspector Alexander Tagum ever asked the
victim whether he believed that he was going to die out of his
injuries or any other similar question. Sonny Boy Redovan claimed
that he was able to talk with the victim for around an hour but the
only thing he revealed of their conversation was the alleged
identi cation of the victim of his two assailants.53 For his part,
Inspector Tagum admitted that the only question he asked of the
victim was if the victim knew who had shot him.54

While it is true that the law does not require that the declarant
explicitly state his perception that he has given up the hope of
life55 , the circumstances surrounding his declaration must justify
the conclusion that he was conscious of his impending death.56 In
the instant case, it was not proven that the victim was ever aware
of the seriousness of his condition. As testi ed to by Dr. Mark
Aguayo, the vital signs of the victim, prior to his operation, were
quite stable.57 Moreover, from the time the victim was brought to
the hospital at 10:30 p.m. until his operation at 12:00 midnight, he
was still able to talk intelligently with at least four (4) other persons
on various matters. The fact that his vital signs were strong and
that he still had strength to converse with these four (4) witnesses
belie the conclusion that the victim was under the consciousness
of death by reason of the gravity of his wounds.

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.… 13/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

Neither may the alleged statements attributed to the victim be

admissible as part of the res gestae. Res gestae refers to those
exclamations and statements made by either the participants,
victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or
immediately after the commission of a crime, when the
circumstances are such that the statements were made as a
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of
the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to
deliberate and to fabricate a false statement.58

In order to admit statements as evidence part of the res gestae, the

element of spontaneity is critical.1âwphi1 The following factors
have generally been considered in determining whether statements
offered in evidence as part of the res gestae have been made
spontaneously: (1) the time that lapsed between the occurrence of
the act or transaction and the making of the statement; (2) the
place where the statement was made; (3) the condition of the
declarant when he made the statement; (4) the presence or
absence of intervening events between the occurrence and the
statement relative thereto; and (5) the nature and circumstances of
the statement itself.59

Tested against these factors to test the spontaneity of the

statements attributed to the victim, we rule that these statements
fail to qualify as part of the res gestae. When Mamansal allegedly
uttered the statements attributed to him, an appreciable amount of
time had already elapsed from the time that he was shot as the
victim was shot at around 10:00 p.m. but he only uttered the
statements attributed to him about 30 minutes to an hour later.
Moreover, he allegedly made these statements not at the scene of
the crime but at the hospital where he was brought for treatment.
Likewise, the trip from the scene of the crime to the hospital
constituted an intervening event that could have afforded the
victim opportunity for deliberation. These circumstances, taken
together, indubitably show that the statements allegedly uttered by

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.… 14/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

Mamansal lack the requisite spontaneity in order for these to be

admitted as part of the res gestae.

Finally, after a thorough reading of the testimonies presented by

both sides, it is even doubtful that the victim ever uttered these
alleged ante mortem statements in the rst place. We note that the
testimonies of Sonny Boy Redovan and Investigator Alexander
Tagum are contradicted not only by the witnesses for the defense
but also by the prosecution’s own witnesses.

Dr. Mark Aguayo, the doctor who performed the operation on the
victim and who is an impartial and disinterested witness,
categorically stated that the victim told him that he did not
recognize those who had shot him.60 He likewise testi ed that
witness Sonny Boy Redovan told him in the emergency room that
the victim was not able to recognize his assailants because of
darkness.61 Similarly, the wife and the daughter of Asim
Mamansal, who were also able to talk with the victim prior to his
death, likewise denied that the victim ever told them the identity of
his assailants. We fail to see why the victim should choose to tell
some people the identity of his assailants and deny his knowledge
of the same to others.

With respect to the witnesses for the defense, Alex Siago and
Patricio Fuertes, who were both present at the site of the shooting
immediately after the incident, testi ed that they did not hear the
victim identify his assailants. Patricio Fuertes even stated that at
the hospital, he heard Mamansal tell the police o cers present
that he did not recognize those who had shot him. Most
importantly, Alice Villamor, who was the lover of the victim and
who was with him during the shooting, categorically stated that it
was not possible to recognize the assailants as the area where the
shooting happened was dark. Moreover, she was able to talk with
Mamansal at the hospital where he told her that he did not see the
persons who had shot him. This testimony of Villamor is quite
signi cant and we fail to see why the trial court failed to consider
the same in its decision. Alice Villamor, as the lover of the victim,
chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.… 15/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

had no motive to lie for the defense and had all the reason to speak
the truth in order to seek justice for the death of her lover.

As previously stated, the trial court based its judgment of

conviction on the alleged ante mortem statements of the victim
and the apparent weakness of the defense put up by the two
accused-appellants. As it now stands however, the weakness of
the alibi of the two accused-appellants cannot be held against
them in view of the absence of a clear and positive identi cation of
them as the perpetrators of the crime. And while their alibi may not
have been proven so satisfactorily as to leave no room for doubt,
such an in rmity can not strengthen the weakness of the
prosecution’s evidence, the reason being that in a criminal
prosecution, the State must rely on the strength of its own
evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.62

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment dated 8 May

1998 of Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan,
Cotabato is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants
Anthony Melchor Palmones and Anthony Baltazar Palmones are
ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED from con nement unless they
are being held for some other legal grounds.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 17-34.

2 In Criminal Case No. 65-97 penned by Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano.

3 Rollo, pp. 6-7.

4 T.S.N., July 29, 1997, pp. 4-5.

5 Ibid, pp. 5-6.

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.… 16/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

6 Ibid, p. 19.

7 Ibid, p. 34.

8 Ibid, pp. 42-44.

9 Ibid, p. 44.

10 Ibid, pp. 49-57.

11 Ibid, pp. 63-64.

12 Ibid, pp. 84-86.

13 Ibid, pp. 96-98.

14 Ibid, pp. 102-106.

15 Ibid, pp. 108-110.

16 Ibid, pp. 110-113.

17 Ibid, pp. 114-115.

18 Ibid, pp. 125-127.

19 Ibid, pp. 134-135.

20 T.S.N., July 31, 1997, pp. 14-15.

21 Ibid, pp. 74-77.

22 Ibid, pp. 83-87.

23 Exhibit "G".

24 Exhibit "H".

25 T.S.N., September 2, 1997, pp. 7-8.

26 Ibid, pp. 10-12.

27 Ibid, p. 207
chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.… 17/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

28 Ibid,pp. 20-22.

29 Ibid, p. 35.

30 Ibid, pp. 41-42.

31 Ibid, p. 43.

32 Ibid, pp. 58-59.

33 Ibid, p. 61.

34 Ibid, pp. 66-67.

35 Ibid, pp 67-69.

36 Ibid, pp. 62-63.

37 T.S.N., September 30, 1997, p. 19.

38 Ibid, p. 18.

39 Ibid, p. 20.

40 Ibid, pp. 27-29.

41 Ibid, pp. 29-33.

42 Ibid, p. 33.

43 Ibid, pp. 34-35.

44 Ibid, p. 37.

45 Records, pp. 859-879.

46 Records, pp. 903-906.

47 Rollo, pp. 213-227.

48 People vs. Gado, 298 SCRA 466.

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.… 18/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 136303 - Reader Mode

49 People vs. Viovicente, 286 SCRA 1; People vs. Bergante, 286

SCRA 629.

50 T.S.N., July 29, 1997, pp. 4-5.

51 Ibid, pp. 114-117.

52 People vs. Lazarte, 200 SCRA 361.

53 T.S.N., July 29, 1997, p. 19.

54 Ibid, p. 135.

55 People vs. Bautista, 271 SCRA 613.

56 People vs. Narca, 275 SCRA 696.

57 T.S.N., July 29, 1997, p.81.

58 People vs. Sanchez, 213 SCRA 70.

59 People vs. Manhuyod, Jr., 290 SCRA 257.

60 T.S.N., July 29, 1997, pp. 42-44.

61 Ibid, pp. 63-64.

62 People vs. Lazart, supra; People vs. Somontano, 128 SCRA 415.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

chrome-distiller://9bba915e-352e-47ca-b8f1-d3e70cb01669_81a3be77a434fb0ea217036a68f219e4e406e34f06fe6c615314138ee59bfaa2/?title=G.… 19/19