GR 239480; (September, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 239480. September 28, 2022.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIO ESPERIDION, ALBECIO NADURA, JR., GIDEON SEĂ‘AROSA, ET AL. ACCUSED, GIDEON SEĂ‘AROSA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Gideon Señarosa, along with co-accused, was charged with Murder for the death of Phil Feliciano and Frustrated Murder for the injuries to Gualberto Codesta. The charges stemmed from an ambush on May 3, 1995, in Kalibo, Aklan. Prosecution witnesses Codesta, Ex Feliciano, and Melbeth Feliciano testified that while traveling in a pick-up truck, they were fired upon. Codesta was wounded, and Phil Feliciano was killed. Ex Feliciano identified co-accused Esperidion and Nadura approaching the vehicle after the shooting. Melbeth Feliciano testified she saw two men by a motorcycle before the ambush and later identified them as Nadura and another co-accused, Relimbo. The prosecution’s case against Señarosa, however, hinged on a paraffin test indicating he had gunpowder nitrates on his hands and the testimony of SPO3 Subong, who claimed Señarosa admitted involvement during custodial investigation.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Gideon Señarosa for Murder and Attempted Murder beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Gideon Señarosa. The ruling was grounded on the prosecution’s failure to establish his guilt with the requisite moral certainty. The Court emphasized that a positive paraffin test result is not conclusive proof that a person fired a gun, as nitrates can be innocently acquired. Crucially, the testimony of SPO3 Subong regarding Señarosa’s alleged extrajudicial confession was deemed inadmissible. The confession was obtained without the presence of competent and independent counsel, violating Señarosa’s constitutional rights. The Court noted that the supposed counsel, Atty. Baldevieso, was the police officer who signed the complaint-affidavit and was part of the investigating team, creating a clear conflict of interest and failing the test of independence. Without this inadmissible confession, the remaining evidence was insufficient. The eyewitness accounts did not identify Señarosa as a participant in the shooting or as one of the individuals seen at the scene before or after the incident. The paraffin test, standing alone, could not sustain a conviction. Consequently, the evidence failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, warranting acquittal on the grounds of reasonable doubt.