G.R. No. 241946, July 29, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Elever Jaen y Morante, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

This is a dissenting opinion in a murder case. The accused-appellant, Elever Jaen y Morante, was convicted based largely on the testimony of SPO3 Freddie Cayot, Jr., the alleged sole eyewitness, and circumstantial evidence. The dissent argues that the conviction is erroneous. The prosecution’s narrative, as per SPO3 Cayot, was that the victim was shot six times inside a moving car where Jaen, the victim, and SPO3 Cayot were present. SPO3 Cayot claimed he did not see the shooting but later implicated Jaen. The dissent highlights several issues: the gun used was SPO3 Cayot’s own firearm, stored under the driver’s seat; SPO3 Cayot gave inconsistent statements about locating the gun and seeing the victim hold it; he initially told the victim’s family the victim committed suicide; and he slapped Jaen when Jaen tried to speak in front of the family. The dissent also questions the plausibility of SPO3 Cayot not reacting to six gunshots in a confined space, given that a Beretta 9mm is semi-automatic (firing single shots with pauses), not fully automatic. Further, forensic evidence showed gunpowder nitrates on the victim’s hands, which the dissent argues could indicate the victim handled the gun. The dissent contends that SPO3 Cayot’s credibility is severely compromised and that the circumstantial evidence does not exclusively point to Jaen’s guilt.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Elever Jaen y Morante for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the direct testimony of SPO3 Cayot and the circumstantial evidence presented.

RULING

The dissenting opinion concludes that the guilt of Jaen was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. It argues that:
1. The circumstantial evidence fails to meet the standard for conviction, as it does not form an unbroken chain leading exclusively to Jaen’s guilt and does not exclude the possibility that SPO3 Cayot committed the crime.
2. SPO3 Cayot’s testimony is unreliable due to inconsistencies (e.g., about the gun’s location and the victim holding it), implausible reactions (e.g., not stopping the car immediately after gunshots, claiming not to see the shooting in a small moving car), and questionable behavior (e.g., initially stating the victim committed suicide, slapping Jaen to prevent him from speaking).
3. Direct evidence (SPO3 Cayot’s testimony) exists but is unreliable; circumstantial evidence should not be resorted to merely because the direct evidence is incredible.
4. Forensic evidence (gunpowder nitrates on the victim’s hands) does not conclusively prove Jaen’s guilt and may support other inferences.
5. The presumption of innocence must prevail where reasonable doubt exists. The dissent emphasizes that suspicion alone cannot justify conviction.
Thus, the dissenting opinion votes to GRANT the appeal and ACQUIT Elever Jaen y Morante.