GR 117576; (September, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 117576 September 18, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO SANTIAGO JAMIRO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Ernesto Jamiro, a police officer, was charged with murder for the fatal shooting of Eduardo Mulingbayan on December 19, 1989, in Bacoor, Cavite. The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses—Eduardo Manaois, Aries Fuentes, and Edmond Allan Ortiz—who consistently testified that they saw Jamiro, without any provocation, shoot the victim from behind while he was seated and drinking beer inside a store. The witnesses explained their initial reluctance to come forward due to fear of the accused, who was a policeman and had warned them against testifying. The defense, conversely, presented an alibi, claiming Jamiro was on duty at a distant police outpost at the time of the incident, a claim corroborated by his colleagues.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering the alleged delay in the eyewitnesses’ reporting and the defense of alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the delay of the eyewitnesses in reporting the crime was sufficiently explained by their genuine fear of the accused, a police officer, who had threatened them. Such fear is a valid reason for silence and does not impair credibility. The testimonies of the three eyewitnesses were found to be credible, straightforward, and consistent on the material point of Jamiro’s culpability. Minor inconsistencies regarding peripheral details were deemed inconsequential and even reinforced their credibility by negating any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.
The defense of alibi was rejected as inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses. The Court found the claimed distance between the police outpost and the crime scene was not insurmountable, rendering the alibi unpersuasive. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated, as the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing the indemnity for death to P50,000.00 and awarding moral damages of P50,000.00, but deleting the awards for funeral expenses and exemplary damages for lack of sufficient basis. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.