G.R. No. 140538 -39; June 14, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. GODOFREDO B. ADOR and DIOSDADO B. ADOR III, appellants.

FACTS

On March 10, 1997, around 7:30 PM in Pacol, Naga City, Absalon “Abe” Cuya III and Rodolfo “Ompong” Chavez were shot dead. Witnesses heard gunshots and found Chavez alive, who stated, “tinambangan kami ng Ador” (“We were ambushed by the Adors”) before dying. Cuya was found dead nearby. Six members of the Ador family (Diosdado Sr., Diosdado Jr., Diosdado III, Godofredo, Rosalino, and Allan) were charged with murder for both deaths in two separate Informations alleging conspiracy, treachery, aid of armed men, evident premeditation, and nighttime. Only four (Diosdado Sr., Godofredo, Rosalino, and Allan) were apprehended and tried, as Diosdado Jr. and Diosdado III remained at large.
The prosecution presented evidence of a long-standing feud between the Ador and Cuya/Chavez families. During the investigation, Godofredo surrendered a .38 caliber “paltik” handgun (later identified as a .357 Smith and Wesson Magnum homemade revolver) from his residence, claiming he fired it after hearing gunshots on the night of the incident. A .38 caliber slug recovered from Cuya’s head was ballistically matched to test bullets fired from this surrendered firearm. Paraffin tests on the apprehended Adors (Diosdado Sr., Diosdado III, Godofredo, Rosalino, and Allan) yielded positive results for gunpowder nitrates on their hands, except for Reynaldo Ador who tested negative.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellants, Godofredo B. Ador and Diosdado B. Ador III, for the crimes of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED appellants Godofredo B. Ador and Diosdado B. Ador III. The prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish conspiracy or the individual identities of the perpetrators. The dying declaration of Chavez (“tinambangan kami ng Ador”) was inadmissible as it was not established with certainty that Chavez knew his assailants or that he made the statement under a consciousness of impending death. The ballistic match of the slug to Godofredo’s gun was rendered inconclusive because the chain of custody of the firearm was compromised; the gun was not properly marked and was stored in an officer’s private locker, breaking the required continuity of possession. The paraffin test results were not conclusive proof that the appellants fired a gun, as such tests can yield positive results from substances other than gunpowder residue. Furthermore, the alleged motive of a family feud, without corroborative evidence directly linking the appellants to the shooting, was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.