G.R. No. 129692 September 15, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABUBAKAR ANG-NGUHO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Abubakar Ang-Nguho, along with nine others, was charged with Murder for the killing of Pianang Salih on May 1, 1995, in Barangay Amaloy, Tipo-Tipo, Basilan. The information alleged they were armed with assorted high-powered firearms, conspired, and attacked the victim with treachery and evident premeditation. Only accused-appellant was arrested and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented Hadji Muin Salih, the victim’s brother, who testified that before she died at the hospital, the victim identified accused-appellant as her assailant. Eyewitness Sattar Sahi claimed he saw seven armed men, including accused-appellant, firing indiscriminately; he specifically saw accused-appellant aim and shoot at the victim while she was at an artesian well. SPO2 Alberto Polio investigated and reported a prima facie case for murder. Dr. Pilardo Perez testified the victim was unconscious when he attended to her. The defense consisted solely of accused-appellant’s testimony, denying his presence at the crime scene and claiming he was in Lamitan watching a movie, and alleging he was implicated due to a feud between residents of Dep-Dep and Amaloy. The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant guilty of murder, appreciating the aggravating circumstances of treachery and band, and sentenced him to death, ordering him to pay actual and moral damages.

ISSUE

The main issues are whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution’s evidence and in imposing the death penalty despite the presence of reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court found accused-appellant’s contentions well taken and reversed the trial court’s decision. The Court found Sattar Sahi’s eyewitness account improbable and unworthy of credence due to inconsistencies, such as initially testifying accused-appellant had a Garand rifle and later stating it was an M-16 Armalite, and his claim that only one bullet hit the victim despite multiple shots fired amidst a chaotic shooting rampage. The Court also held that the alleged dying declaration of the victim to her brother was inadmissible because the prosecution failed to establish the victim’s consciousness of impending death at the time of the declaration; the attending physician testified she was unconscious upon arrival at the hospital. The prosecution’s evidence was deemed insufficient to prove accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, accused-appellant was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.