GR 116487; (December, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116487 December 15, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GUILLERMO ARINGUE y AMOGUIS, alias “Along,” MICHAEL CABAL y DUMADAG, alias “Gonggong”, and PERCIVERANDO PITAO y GUMAPAC, alias “Bebot,” accused. MICHAEL CABAL y DUMADAG and PERCIVERANDO PITAO y GUMAPAC, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On August 5, 1989, Nicomedes Salas, President of St. Joseph Institute of Technology (SJIT), was shot and killed outside the school. His wife, Leticia, and driver, Rogelio Amora, witnessed the shooting and identified Perciverando Pitao as one of the assailants. The autopsy revealed two fatal gunshot wounds. On August 8, 1989, police apprehended Pitao and Michael Cabal. Cabal gave an extrajudicial confession, admitting the killing for a P5,000 reward and implicating Pitao and Guillermo Aringue as the mastermind. Aringue also confessed, claiming he planned the assassination due to a dispute over profits from SJIT. On August 9, a radio reporter recorded an interview where all three accused admitted the killing. Firearms recovered from Pitao’s sister were ballistically matched to the bullets from the victim’s body. During trial, all accused repudiated their confessions, claiming they were extracted through force and intimidation, and presented alibis. The trial court convicted Pitao and Cabal of murder but acquitted Aringue. Cabal and Pitao appealed.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the guilt of accused-appellants Michael Cabal and Perciverando Pitao for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Leticia Salas and Rogelio Amora, who knew Pitao, was credible and prevailed over the appellants’ alibis. The extrajudicial confessions of Cabal and Aringue, given with the assistance of counsel, were deemed voluntary and admissible. The taped interview where appellants admitted guilt further corroborated their involvement. The recovery of the murder weapons, ballistically matched to the crime, constituted conclusive evidence of guilt. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing proof. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present as the attack was sudden and from behind, leaving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The Court modified the damages awarded, ordering appellants to indemnify the victim’s heirs with P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, P948,274.14 as lost earnings, and P20,000 as attorney’s fees.