Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR AÑORA y BACALLA 406 SCRA 433 (2003)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR AÑORA y BACALLA 406 SCRA 433 (2003)

When the evidence of the prosecution is weak and betrays lack of concreteness, appellant’s alibi assumes importance. Appellant Victor Añora y Bacalla was charged with murder for fatally shooting Fernando Lim. Fernando‘s death resulted from the two gunshot wounds that he received because of the shooting. After three days, two witnesses namely: Pablo Rico, Jr. and Jonas Niala executed a joint affidavit recounting that at the time of the incident they heard a single gunshot and saw two persons one holding a gun which they came to know as the appellant Bacalla and the other sprawled on the floor which was Fernando. After three years and more than nine months Rico gave his testimony during trial reiterating what he said in the joint affidavit and adding that the killing of Fernando by Bacalla was caused by an altercation involving drugs since the Fernando was a drug pusher. The defense suggested that it was Bacalla‘s uncle and namesake Victor Añora y Cempron who committed the crime and that Bacalla during the time when said murder took place was busy working at a Fish Market in Cebu which was corroborated by Roberto Tesoro head of the laborers of fish vendors. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Victor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

ISSUE:

Whether or not erred in finding Victor guilty of murder

HELD:

Since Rico claimed at the witness stand that he and Niala were only about 8 arms length away from the chapel and they immediately, after hearing the ―gunburst, walked towards where it came from, it is incredible why it took them five minutes, after taking merely 10 steps, to reach the spot where Bacalla and Fernando allegedly were. But even assuming that it was only after five minutes that Rico and Niala repaired to where Bacalla and Fernando were, it is improbable that within said span of time, the assailant would still be tucking his gun into his waist and not leave the locus criminis right away, given the fact that there were many houses at the back of the chapel, the curiosity of the occupants of which would likely be aroused. It bears noting that by Rico‘s claim, soon after the shooting and after he informed the victim‘s father about it, the latter arrived as did the policemen who picked him up and Niala. Yet it was only after three days that Rico and Niala executed a joint affidavit relating what they claimed to have seen after hearing a ―single burst of fire. Just as it bears noting that in said affidavit, Rico and Niala heard only a ―single burst of fire despite the fact that the medico legal found wounds in the victim which were the result of two gunshots; and that in the same affidavit, Rico and Niala declared that ―they came to know the name of the man who tucked a gun into his waist as Victor Añora, but four and a half years later, when Rico took the witness stand on January 27, 1995, he claimed that prior to the date of the incident, July 22, 1990, he had known and had twice seen Bacalla ―because he (Rico) frequented to (sic) their house because he is a friend of my lady friend. In fine, the alleged facts and circumstances testified on by Rico, if not inconsistent with the joint affidavit he and Niala executed, are improbable, not being in consonance to reason and the common experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men. They are, therefore, unworthy of credence. Rico‘s testimony having been discredited, this Court appreciates no other evidence to incriminate Bacalla for the fatal shooting of the victim. It is a settled doctrine that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of that of the defense. Since in the case at bar the evidence for the prosecution is weak and betrays lack of concreteness, appellant‘s alibi assumes importance.

Share this:

Leave a Reply