People v. Hubilo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 18, 1988, Rogelio Antonio (driver), Hermogenia Cacayurin, Cesario Gamiz, and Ferdinand Gamiz were on board a tricycle. As they approached the cemetery of Nagcuralan, gunfire erupted. The driver, Rogelio, was hit and fell. Ferdinand Gamiz jumped off and ran, but was shot by an armed man whose face was covered by a handkerchief. The cover fell off, and Ferdinand recognized the assailant as Adly Hubilo. Ferdinand pleaded for mercy, but Hubilo fired again. Ferdinand escaped and later identified Hubilo to barangay tanods and his father. The tricycle was then fired upon multiple times by Hubilo. Cesario Gamiz, Rogelio Antonio, and Hermogenia Cacayurin died from gunshot wounds. Ferdinand Gamiz survived his gunshot wound. Procedural History: A complaint for multiple murder with frustrated murder was filed against Adly Hubilo and Bernardo Silapan. Hubilo filed a motion to fix bail and for provisional liberty, and later waived his right to present evidence at the preliminary investigation, requesting the case be forwarded to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). An information was filed with the RTC. Hubilo's application for bail was initially denied but later granted upon reconsideration, then ultimately denied again. Hubilo filed a petition for certiorari questioning the denial of bail and an order returning the case to a judge, which was dismissed. Hubilo then filed a motion for preliminary investigation, which was denied. Hubilo was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and the trial proceeded. The RTC rendered a judgment convicting Hubilo of multiple (triple) murder and frustrated murder. The Petition: Appellant Adly Hubilo appealed his conviction, raising several errors concerning the denial of his right to due process via the denial of a preliminary investigation, the admissibility of Ferdinand Gamiz's ante-mortem statement, the disregard of negative paraffin test results, the trial court's factual findings, the medico-legal expert's findings, the alleged evil motive in filing charges, the reliability of Ferdinand Gamiz's testimony, the disregard of his defenses, and the conviction itself.
Issue(s)
Whether the denial of a preliminary investigation constitutes a denial of due process when the accused had waived such right and later participated in bail proceedings, arraignment, and trial. Whether Ferdinand Gamiz's statement, made while wounded in an ambulance shortly after the shooting, is admissible as part of the res gestae, even if he did not die. Whether the negative results of a paraffin test conclusively prove that the accused did not fire a gun. Whether the testimony of a single eyewitness, Ferdinand Gamiz, is sufficient to support a conviction, despite alleged inconsistencies. Whether minor inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony, such as the description of the firearm or the entry and exit points of a bullet, destroy the witness's credibility. Whether the defense of alibi, presented by the accused and his relatives, can prevail against the positive identification of the accused by the victim. Whether treachery was present in the commission of the crime. Whether the accused is liable for three separate counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Adly Hubilo for three counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder, with modifications to the penalties and indemnities awarded. The Court ruled that the right to preliminary investigation was deemed waived by the appellant's actions. The ante-mortem statement of Ferdinand Gamiz was admissible as part of the res gestae. Negative paraffin test results are not conclusive. The testimony of a single eyewitness, Ferdinand Gamiz, was found credible and sufficient for conviction, and minor inconsistencies did not impair his credibility. The alibi presented was weak and could not overcome the positive identification. Treachery was found to be present. The appellant was held liable for three separate murders and one frustrated murder.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of preliminary investigation: The Court held that the right to preliminary investigation is a substantive right, but it can be waived. Appellant Hubilo expressly waived his right to preliminary investigation. Furthermore, by applying for bail and submitting to arraignment and trial, he must be deemed to have foregone his right to question any irregularity in the preliminary investigation. The Court noted that he did not pursue the issue through certiorari and prohibition. Given that a judgment of conviction was rendered after a trial on the merits, it was too late for the appellant to raise this issue. The denial of the preliminary investigation, in this context, did not amount to a denial of due process. On the admissibility of Ferdinand Gamiz's ante-mortem statement: The Court ruled that the statement made by Ferdinand Gamiz while wounded in the ambulance, shortly after the shooting, was properly admissible as part of the res gestae. The requisites for admissibility as part of the res gestae were met: the shooting was a startling occurrence, the statement was made immediately after the occurrence before the declarant had the opportunity to contrive falsehoods, and the statement related to the occurrence and identified Adly Hubilo as the assailant. The fact that Ferdinand Gamiz survived did not render the statement inadmissible. On the significance of negative paraffin test results: The Court stated that negative results from a paraffin test are not conclusive evidence that an accused did not fire a gun. It is possible for a person to discharge a firearm and yet have no gunpowder residue on their hands, for instance, if they wore gloves, washed their hands, or if a strong wind blew the residue away. The testimony of the PC Crime Laboratory Service expert confirmed these possibilities. Therefore, the trial court did not err in disregarding the negative findings of the paraffin test. On the credibility and sufficiency of the eyewitness testimony: The Court found that the testimony of Ferdinand Gamiz, a lone eyewitness, was positive, reasonable, and credible, thus sufficient to support a conviction. The trial court, having observed his demeanor, assessed his credibility. The appellant failed to show any animosity or ill-feeling on the part of Ferdinand Gamiz that could have motivated a false accusation. The contention that Ferdinand Gamiz identified Hubilo only after pressure from a barangay captain was deemed speculative, as no connection was established, and Hubilo himself admitted he was not a political rival. The presumption is that Ferdinand Gamiz had no improper motive in testifying. On minor inconsistencies in the testimony: The Court addressed inconsistencies regarding the description of the firearm (22-caliber long firearm versus Garand rifle and M-30 U.S. Army Carbine) and the entry and exit points of the bullet. It reasoned that Ferdinand Gamiz was not a military man and thus unfamiliar with firearms, making his description understandable. Similarly, the discrepancy in the bullet wound description was attributed to Ferdinand's lack of medical knowledge and the rapid nature of the event. The Court reiterated that minor inconsistencies do not destroy credibility and can even enhance it by suggesting the testimony was not rehearsed. The trial court's assessment of credibility, based on these observations, was given great weight. On the defense of alibi: The Court found the defense of alibi to be weak. The appellant claimed to be in Sinimbaan, a 30-minute walk away, and his relatives corroborated this. However, the Court emphasized that an accused asserting alibi must prove not only presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the scene of the crime. Given the short distance and travel time between Sinimbaan and Nagcuralan, it was not physically impossible for Hubilo to have been present at the crime scene. This weakness was further underscored by the positive identification of Hubilo by Ferdinand Gamiz. On the presence of treachery: The Court affirmed the trial court's characterization of the crime as murder due to treachery. The appellant selected a secluded area with thick cogon grass and fired suddenly as the tricycle approached. This mode of execution ensured the commission of the crime without risk to himself from any defense the victims might have made, thus constituting treachery. On the liability for multiple murders: The Court held that the appellant was liable for three separate crimes of murder and one crime of frustrated murder. The evidence did not indicate that a single shot killed three persons. Instead, separate shots were directed at each victim, with Cesario suffering eight wounds, Rogelio three, and Hermogenia two. The evidence also showed that after Ferdinand escaped, Hubilo returned to the tricycle and fired multiple shots at the victims on the road, presumably to ensure their deaths. Therefore, the appellant was properly held liable for three distinct murders.
Main Doctrine
The right to preliminary investigation can be waived by the accused, and such waiver is deemed to occur when the accused applies for bail, submits to arraignment, and proceeds to trial. Negative results from a paraffin test are not conclusive evidence that an accused did not fire a gun, as various factors can prevent the detection of gunpowder residue. The testimony of a single eyewitness, if positive, credible, and delivered spontaneously, is sufficient to support a conviction. Minor inconsistencies in a witness's testimony do not necessarily destroy credibility and may even enhance it by suggesting the testimony was not rehearsed. Alibi is a weak defense, especially when not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the accused must prove not only presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the scene of the crime. Treachery is present when the offender employs a mode of execution that tends to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to himself. An accused is liable for separate crimes of murder for each victim killed, absent proof that a single act caused multiple deaths.