Aliling v. People, G.R. No. 230991, 2018,

HILARIO B. ALILING, Petitioner, v. 

EOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 230991, SECOND DIVISION, June 11, 2018,

Ponente: Caguioa

SYNOPSIS:

Nature of Petition:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) finding petitioner Hilario B. Aliling alias "Larry" (Aliling), guilty of Frustrated Murder; 

FACTS:

VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION:

In this case, the prosecution presented three witnesses to testify against the accused, Hilario Aliling, who was alleged to have shot and injured the victim, Jerry Tumbaga. The first witness was Tumbaga himself, who testified that he was shot in the back by the accused while he was leaving a basketball game. The second witness, Jesus Marasigan, testified that he was with Tumbaga at the basketball court and saw the accused shoot Tumbaga twice. The third witness, Dr. Mark Louie M. Lanting, was the doctor who conducted the surgery on Tumbaga and issued a medical certificate. Overall, the prosecution's version of events suggests that Aliling is responsible for the shooting of Tumbaga.

VERSION OF THE [DEFENSE]:

Hilario Aliling y Bathan, the accused, presented his defense in court. He claimed that he was with several people campaigning for a certain Apacible in Barangay Masalisi on April 18, 2010. They finished campaigning around 6:00 PM and went to a meeting. He then proceeded to the house of their coordinator at Barangay Matingain at around 1:00 AM and went home at around 1:30 AM. Aliling learned that he was a suspect on June 22 when he received a subpoena. He also claimed that the private complainant may have been mad at him due to a previous confrontation in Barangay Butong. The defense presented two witnesses, Adrian Cabral Atienza and Michael Perez Bathan, who testified that they were with Aliling in Barangay Masalisi on April 18, 2010. Michael Perez Bathan testified that he was at a basketball court in Barangay Matingain when he heard gunshots and saw an unidentified man shoot the private complainant. He did not see Aliling at the place when the shooting happened.

Trial Court and CA's Decision:

On November 25, 2015, the RTC rendered its Decision finding Aliling guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Frustrated Murder. The trial court gave more credence to the testimonies of the victim, Jerry M. Tumbaga (Tumbaga) and the other eyewitness Jesus C. Marasigan (Marasigan) who both identified Aliling as the gunman, as against Aliling's defense of alibi. 

Thus, Aliling filed a Notice of Appeal which was given due course by the RTC in its Order dated December 10, 2015. Aliling's Motion for Bail pending appeal was also granted. The CA affirmed the RTC Decision in its Assailed Decision. On the alibi, the appellate court noted that the corroborative witness testified that he did not lmow Aliling's whereabouts at the time of the incident. Aliling' s Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CA in its Assailed Resolution. Thus, he elevated the case before the Court through this Petition. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the accused is guilty of frustrated murder. NO

RULING: 

NO.

In criminal prosecutions, a person who stands charged of a crime enjoys the presumption of innocence, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. He is designated as the accused precisely because the allegations against him have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Positive testimony is generally given more weight than the defenses of denial and alibi which are held to be inherently weak defenses because they can be easily fabricated. However, the defenses of denial and alibi should not be so easily dismissed by the Court as untrue. While, indeed, the defense of denial or alibi can be easily fabricated, the same can be said of untruthful accusations, in that they can be as easily concocted. 

In alibi, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed, but that it was likewise physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time thereof. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. 

In the instant case, the RTC and CA did not give credence to the defense's testimonial evidence based on the alleged inconsistencies of the witnesses' statements. However, the Court found that the accused’s alibi was straightforward, credible, and corroborated by an impartial witness. Furthermore, there was eyewitness testimony to the effect that the accused was not the gunman. 

Moreover, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory on a material point. Marasigan claimed that the gunshots were successively fired. However, the private complainant testified that there was a pause between the shots. At first glance, it would seem that the succession of the gunshots is not a material point. However, the manner of execution of the crime is of prime significance especially in the testimony of private complainant, the victim himself, as he testified that the pause between shots supposedly gave him the opportunity to turn his head and see the culprit after he was shot for the first time in the back. However, this testimony is contradicted by Marasigan who testified that the shots were successive. Notably, the testimony of Marasigan as to the continuous succession of shots is corroborated by the testimony of defense witness Bathan, who also testified that the shots were fired one after another.Furthermore, in his Sinumpaang Salaysay which he identified and authenticated before the RTC, private complainant attested that the accused had a companion that night at the basketball court. However, during his cross-examination, he denied his statement. 

The inconsistency in the statements of the prosecution witnesses on material points significantly erodes the credibility of their testimonies, juxtaposed against the forthright and consistent testimonies of the defense witnesses. With the probative value of the prosecution witnesses' testimony greatly diminished, the alibi of the accused is given credence. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to overcome the burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Acquittal, therefore, is in order.