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

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Elever Jaen y Morante, was charged with Murder for the killing of Jacob Eduardo Miguel O. Manzo. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from witness SPO3 Freddie Cayot, Jr., established that on July 13, 2013, Cayot, Jaen, and the victim Manzo attended a ceremony and later had a drinking session. They proceeded to a resto-bar, with Cayot driving, Manzo in the front passenger seat, and Jaen in the back seat. Cayot had earlier placed his service firearm (a Beretta pistol) beneath the driver’s seat. While driving near Manzo’s house, Cayot heard a series of gunshots and saw smoke inside the car. He stopped and found Manzo with gunshot wounds to the head. Initially, Jaen claimed Manzo took the gun, leading Cayot to believe it was a suicide. At Manzo’s house, Jaen acted fidgety, repeatedly exclaimed “Aaminin ko lahat. Sasabihin ko sa inyo!” and was seen rubbing his hands and wiping them on grass. Manzo was declared dead at the hospital. There, Jaen confessed to Cayot that he shot Manzo, leading to his arrest. The autopsy revealed six gunshot wounds at the back of the head (occipital region), and forensic examination indicated the assailant was likely seated at the back, about two feet away. The paraffin tests on Cayot, Jaen, and Manzo were negative. The firearm, cartridge cases, and deformed jackets were recovered from the car. Jaen pleaded not guilty but presented no evidence.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused-appellant Elever Jaen y Morante is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.

RULING

Yes, the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, holding that the totality of circumstantial evidence sufficiently established Jaen as the perpetrator and that the killing was attended by treachery.
The Court found that all elements of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code were present: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by treachery; and (4) the killing was not parricide or infanticide. On the second element, the Court ruled that the combination of proven circumstances created an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable and moral certainty that Jaen was the gunman, to the exclusion of all others. These circumstances included: (a) Jaen was alone in the back seat directly behind the victim; (b) the gunshots originated from behind the victim, consistent with Jaen’s position; (c) Jaen’s fidgety behavior and repeated exclamations at the victim’s house; (d) his act of rubbing his hands on the wall and wiping them on grass/leaves, suggesting an attempt to remove gunpowder nitrates; (e) his confession to Cayot at the hospital; and (f) the physical and ballistic evidence corroborating the trajectory of the shots from the rear passenger seat. The Court rejected the theory of suicide (due to the negative paraffin test on the victim and the location of the wounds) and found no evidence to suggest Cayot was the shooter. The attack was sudden and from behind, rendering the victim defenseless, thereby qualifying the killing with treachery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court modified the damages, awarding civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of P75,000.00 each, with legal interest at 6% per annum from finality until full payment.