People v Calumpang
Facts:
Accused Rico Calumpang and Jovenal Omatang were found guilty by the RTC of
Dumaguete City for two counts of murder and sentencing both to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay damages to the heirs of the victims
spouses Santiago and Alicia Catipay.
The prosecution’s lone witness, Magno Gomez said in his sworn statement that
both accused hacked Alicia first, when Santiago tried to save his wife, he was also
hacked by the both accused. He further claimed that the accused tried to hack him too
but he was able to run. He passed by the house of Alexander Ebiass and asked for
dried coconut leaves and made a torch out of it. After a kilometer , he saw the house
of cousin Rolando Retada, where he spent the night and left very early in the morning,
even refusing to drink coffee. Neither of the two were informed by Gomez about the
incident the night prior in fear for his own life. However, during the trial,Gomez said
that Santiago was hacked by Rico Calumpang and Alicia by Jovenal Omatang
simultaneously.
The defense on the other hand presented corroborated witness to the alibi that
both accused could not be in the crime scene at the time of the murder as accuses
Omatang stayed in the store of Ana Andagan until 7 pm and only left when his niece
fetched him while Calumpang stayed in the store until 8 pm and helped Ana close her
store, and walked with her home.
For the State’s part, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that reasonable
doubt concerning the guilt of the appellants exist in this case, but stresses the material
inconsistencies between his testimony during the trial and his sworn affidavit. It
concluded that the appellants deserve acquittal on reasonable doubt.
The trial court gave merit to the testimony of Magno stating that his actions are
not contrary to human experience. The case was escalated to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
WON the appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of double
murder.
Ruling:
No, the appellants are not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the crime of
double murder. Generally, an affidavit, being an ex parted, is considered almost
always incomplete and often inaccurate or lacking in details and is deemed inferior to
the testimony given in open court. Jurisprudence, however, forewarns that when
serious and inexplicable discrepancies exist between a previously executed sworn
statement of a witness and his testimonial declarations, with respect to a persons
participation in a serious imputation such as murder, there is raised a grave doubt on
the veracity of the witness account.
The trial court believed Magno’s testimony when he was able to point the exact
location of the wounds inflicted but 19 months ago or barely a day after the incident
when he was asked the same question he failed to recall where Santiago was hit.
Similarly some of Magno’s testimony are unworthy of belief- that appellants
ignored him when he was only five feet away from the alleged unobstructed view of
the murder scene, it makes no sense as well that he only ran for 5- meters when it was
unsure whether appellants ran after him or not. The act of Gomez lighting the torch is
also not an action of someone seeking to avoid peril to his life. Well settled is the rule
that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness, but must be credible in itselfsuch as the common experience and observation
of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.
Appellants defense of alibi was indeed weak, since their alibis were corroborated
only by their relatives and friends, and it was not shown that it was impossible for
them to be at the place of the incident. However, the rule that an accused must
satisfactorily prove his alibi was never intended to change or shift the burden of proof
in criminal cases. It is basic that the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its
own weight and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. Unless the
prosecution overturns the constitutional presumption of innocence of an accused by
competent and credible evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the
presumption remains. There being no sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt
pointing to appellants as the perpetrators of the crime, appellants presumed innocence
stands.
The decision of the trial court is reversed and the appellants acquitted beyond
reasonable doubt.
