Facts:

The case involves two accused, John Jenn Porras and Sergio Emelo, who were charged with murder and frustrated murder. The events transpired on the night of June 20, 1990, when the accused went to the Cavite City Police Station looking for Pfc. Roldan Emelo, a cousin of Sergio Emelo. After some food and drinks at a nearby restaurant, they allegedly conspired with Marcelo Real, who was driving a tricycle, to approach the victim, Rosendo Mortel, at the Aroma Beer House.

A misunderstanding occurred, leading to the shooting of Mortel, who was shot at close range by either Porras or Emelo, as witnessed by a waitress named Maribel German. After Mortel was shot, he fell to the ground, and Porras allegedly returned to shoot him twice more. During the incident, Sgt. Catalino Bermas, who was monitoring the situation, attempted to give chase but was shot by Emelo.

The police later apprehended the accused based on witness testimonies and evidence found in the tricycle used as a getaway vehicle, which included a black ammo pouch and .38 caliber ammunition linked to Emelo. The prosecution presented several witnesses who identified the accused and described their actions during the incident.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the trial court misappreciated the facts and evidence presented.
  2. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible despite alleged inconsistencies.
  3. Whether the defense of alibi presented by the accused was sufficient to exonerate them.
  4. Whether the prosecution's failure to present certain witnesses was detrimental to its case.
  5. Whether the accused were positively identified in court as the perpetrators of the crime.
  6. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated in the conviction for murder.

Arguments:

For the Accused:

  • The accused argued that the trial court misapprehended the facts and relied on inconsistent testimonies from prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the number of assailants.
  • They contended that their alibi, claiming they were at their barracks during the incident, should have exonerated them.
  • They claimed that the prosecution's failure to present certain witnesses, such as Cpl. Crisanto de la Cruz, was fatal to the case.
  • They also argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were hearsay and that they were not positively identified in court.

For the Prosecution:

  • The prosecution maintained that the testimonies of the witnesses were credible and consistent, establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • They argued that the defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail against positive identification by witnesses.
  • The prosecution asserted that the non-presentation of certain witnesses did not undermine their case, as it was within the prosecutor's discretion to decide whom to call.
  • They contended that circumstantial evidence sufficiently established the guilt of the accused.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court found the accused guilty of murder and frustrated murder. It ruled that the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies and physical evidence, established a clear narrative of the events leading to Mortel's death. The court noted that the alleged inconsistencies in witness testimonies were minor and did not detract from their overall credibility.

The court emphasized that the defense of alibi was insufficient, as it did not demonstrate that the accused could not have been present at the crime scene. The court also ruled that the prosecution's failure to present certain witnesses was not detrimental, as the accused could have summoned them if they believed their testimony was crucial.

Regarding the issue of treachery, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove this qualifying circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a modification of the charges against the accused. The court concluded that while conspiracy was established in the killing of Mortel, the actions of Emelo in shooting Sgt. Bermas were not part of that conspiracy.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • Inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding minor details do not necessarily undermine their credibility.
  • The defense of alibi is the weakest of defenses and must be supported by clear evidence that the accused could not have been present at the crime scene.
  • The prosecution has discretion in deciding which witnesses to present, and the failure to present certain witnesses does not automatically invalidate the case.
  • Treachery as a qualifying circumstance must be proven with clear and convincing evidence, particularly regarding the manner of the initial attack.