People v. Lariosa
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On February 12, 2017, Gener H. Panes was shot and killed in Zone 3, Barangay Nabitasan, La Paz, Iloilo City. Police officers responded to the scene and were informed by Rodel Bayoneta that Jake Lariosa y Bayoneta (accused-appellant) was the shooter. Lariosa was subsequently located and arrested. During the autopsy, it was determined that Panes sustained two through-and-through gunshot wounds fired from a distance of more than three feet from his back. Lariosa pleaded not guilty, claiming he was at a drinking spree in a different location at the time of the incident. 2. Procedural History: During the trial, the prosecution listed Ronald Calanza and Rodel Bayoneta as eyewitnesses in the Pre-Trial Order. However, despite multiple subpoenas, both failed to appear. The prosecution then moved to present Lita Calanza, Ronald's sister, as a 'substitute' witness. The defense immediately objected because Lita was not listed in the Pre-Trial Order. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) allowed her testimony in the interest of 'substantial justice.' Lita testified she saw Lariosa shoot Panes in the back. The RTC convicted Lariosa of Murder, which the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed, ruling that the trial court correctly considered the unlisted witness's testimony. 3. The Appeal: Lariosa appealed to the Supreme Court, primarily arguing that Lita Calanza's testimony should be excluded as she was an unlisted witness and the prosecution failed to show 'good cause' for her late inclusion. He further contended that without Lita's testimony, there was no positive identification to overcome the presumption of innocence. The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued that the defense waived its objection by cross-examining Lita and that the RTC had the discretion to modify the Pre-Trial Order to prevent injustice.
Issue(s)
Whether Lita Calanza's testimony is admissible and should be given probative weight despite her non-inclusion as a prosecution witness in the Pre-Trial Order. Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Jake Lariosa y Bayoneta is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that Lita Calanza's testimony is inadmissible. Under Rule 118, Section 4 and A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, the Pre-Trial Order is binding and limits the trial to evidence identified therein. The prosecution is deemed to have waived the presentation of any witness not included in the Order unless 'good cause' is shown. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide a specific demonstration of facts to justify Lita's non-inclusion, merely citing the unavailability of the original witness, Ronald. The Court noted that Ronald had been personally served subpoenas, yet the prosecution failed to move for a bench warrant to compel his attendance, which is the proper legal remedy. Consequently, the 'substitute' testimony did not meet the 'good cause' standard. Furthermore, the Court held that the defense did not waive its objection by cross-examining Lita. Since the objection was raised immediately when she was called and reiterated in a Demurrer to Evidence, the defense's conduct showed a clear intent to contest the evidence, and the cross-examination was merely a prudent measure to challenge her credibility. On Issue 2: With the exclusion of Lita Calanza's testimony, the prosecution's case fails for lack of positive identification. A valid judgment of conviction requires the identification of the accused as the perpetrator by a credible witness and proof of all elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Lita was the only witness who positively identified Lariosa as the assailant. The testimonies of the police officers were merely hearsay regarding the identity of the shooter, and the medico-legal evidence only confirmed the cause of death but not the identity of the killer. In the absence of a credible eyewitness identification, the constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail. The Court emphasized that any slight doubt as to the identity of the perpetrator must be resolved in favor of the accused, leading to Lariosa's acquittal.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court emphasizes that pre-trial is an essential procedural device for the speedy and fair disposition of cases, designed to take the trial out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering. Under Rule 118 and A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, parties must gather and list all testimonial and documentary evidence prior to the pre-trial conference; otherwise, such evidence is deemed waived. To allow an unlisted witness to testify, the offering party must establish 'good cause,' which is defined as a substantial reason providing a legal excuse, supported by a specific demonstration of facts rather than bare assertions of 'substantial justice.' Furthermore, a timely objection to an unlisted witness is not waived by the act of cross-examination if the objecting party maintains their stance throughout the proceedings, as courts indulge every reasonable presumption against the implied waiver of fundamental rights.