GR 131836; (March, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131836 ; March 30, 2001
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MELITO SINCO and JOHN DOE, accused, MELITO SINCO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On September 2, 1993, Bonifacio Vanadero, Justino Sarmiento, and Nelson Sarmiento were ambushed while traveling on a tricycle in San Juan, Ilocos Sur. Two men emerged from bushes; one fired an armalite rifle, and the other, later identified as appellant Melito Sinco, fired a .45 caliber pistol. Justino Sarmiento was fatally shot, while Vanadero and Nelson Sarmiento survived. Immediately after the incident, the victims told police they could not identify their assailants. Over two years later, in October 1995, Vanadero and Nelson Sarmiento, upon hearing of arrests of a criminal gang, went to the provincial jail where they pointed out Sinco from a group of detainees. They subsequently executed sworn statements identifying him as the gunman.
At trial, the prosecution relied on this out-of-court identification and the in-court testimonies of Vanadero and Nelson Sarmiento. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Sinco was elsewhere at the time. The Regional Trial Court convicted Sinco of the complex crime of Murder with Double Attempted Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Sinco appealed, challenging the credibility of his identification.
ISSUE
Whether the identification of the accused-appellant by the prosecution witnesses is credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Melito Sinco. The Court found the identification process fatally flawed and the witnesses’ testimonies unreliable. The initial police blotter entry stating the perpetrators were “unidentified,” made after the victims were specifically asked, strongly contradicted their later claim of recognition. The subsequent identification at the provincial jail was a suggestive show-up, not a proper lineup, where the witnesses secretly pointed to Sinco from a distance after being shown a limited group of detainees. This procedure was impermissibly suggestive and conducive to mistaken identity.
Furthermore, the Court found the claim of recognition during the chaotic ambush highly improbable. The victims were fleeing at high speed under a hail of gunfire, making a deliberate observation of the assailants’ faces unlikely. The long delay of over two years before any identification, coupled with the suggestive jailhouse identification, failed to meet the standard of moral certainty required for conviction. The alibi, while weak, gained significance in light of the prosecution’s failure to prove Sinco’s identity as the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence prevailed.