GR 148257; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148257 ; March 17, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. CESARIO MONTAÑEZ and DANIEL SUMAYLO, accused. CESARIO MONTAÑEZ, appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Cesario Montañez, was charged with murder for the shooting death of Perlito Ollanes. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Edmundo Ollanes and Joven Hintogaya, who testified that they saw Montañez at the crime scene holding a long firearm immediately after the gunshot. The dying victim himself identified Montañez as his assailant. During trial, co-accused Daniel Sumaylo initially testified that he did not know the killer. However, after the prosecution rested, Sumaylo executed an affidavit confessing to the killing and exculpating Montañez. The trial was reopened, and an Amended Information was filed. Sumaylo then pleaded guilty to the lesser crime of homicide and was sentenced accordingly.
The trial court initially convicted Montañez of murder as a principal but later modified its decision, finding him guilty only as an accomplice. The prosecution appealed this modification to the Court of Appeals, which reinstated the conviction as a principal. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding appellant Cesario Montañez guilty of murder as a principal by direct participation.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding Montañez’s conviction as a principal by direct participation. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and consistent. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Edmundo Ollanes and Joven Hintogaya, who saw Montañez armed and at the scene, coupled with the dying declaration of the victim naming Montañez as the shooter, constituted strong and conclusive evidence of his direct participation. The Court gave minimal weight to Daniel Sumaylo’s recanted testimony and affidavit, which attempted to absolve Montañez, as recantations are viewed with disfavor for being unreliable and often products of coercion or fabrication. The Court found the sequence of events—where Sumaylo changed his story only after being presented as a witness—to be a transparent strategem to exculpate Montañez, which ultimately failed. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly established, as the attack was sudden and afforded the victim no chance to defend himself. The civil indemnity was modified, and exemplary damages were awarded to the heirs of the victim.