GR 93729; (November, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 93729 November 13, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DEOGRACIAS JALON, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Deogracias Jalon was charged with murder for the killing of Pelarito Abujan on the night of May 28, 1986, in Cagayan de Oro City. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of witnesses Allan Gamlot and Eddie Apus, who were companions of the victim. They testified that while walking to a dance hall, shots rang out from a banana plantation. After the victim fell, they saw appellant and an unidentified companion emerge from the plantation carrying firearms and flee. Appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at his employer’s house in Carmen, about twelve kilometers away, at the time of the incident, which was corroborated by his employer, Engineer Romualdo Gaylo. The trial court convicted appellant based on circumstantial evidence and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Appellant appealed, arguing the trial court erred in finding him the perpetrator and in holding the circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the crime of murder.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and acquitted appellant. The Court found that the trial court overlooked material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the key prosecution witnesses, Allan Gamlot and Eddie Apus, which corroded their credibility. Gamlot testified it took him an hour to locate a companion after the shooting, yet claimed he saw appellant flee immediately after the incident. Apus gave conflicting accounts of the number of companions present. The Court also noted that the police blotter entry referred to “Gaudencio Jalon” as the suspect, not appellant Deogracias Jalon. The defense of alibi, corroborated by a credible witness and considering the distance and lack of transportation, was deemed credible. The combination of circumstances did not form an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that appellant was the author of the crime to the exclusion of all others. Appellant was acquitted on reasonable doubt.