GR 263278; (October, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 263278 . October 11, 2023.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMMEL JIMENEZ Y DECENA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Rommel Jimenez y Decena was charged with Murder for the shooting death of Jiamiao Shi a.k.a. Sandy Sy on March 21, 2016, in Infanta, Quezon. The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the testimony of eyewitness Norli Ducog. Norli testified that he saw a black motorcycle stop beside the victim’s vehicle; the backrider alighted, shot the driver, and then attempted to fire another shot before fleeing. Norli described the backrider as tall and fat with a mole on his face. On May 2, 2016, Norli identified accused-appellant from a police “rogue gallery” and later in person, and again in open court. He estimated he was five to six meters away from the assailant. The defense presented an alibi, with accused-appellant claiming he was in Laguna and Manila at the time of the incident, corroborated by four witnesses. The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant of Murder, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals regarding damages. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove his identity as the perpetrator with moral certainty. The out-of-court identification procedure was flawed: the police officer who conducted the “rogue gallery” identification did not testify, leaving no evidence on how it was conducted or why accused-appellant’s photo was included. The in-court identification, being derived from this suggestive out-of-court process, was also unreliable. The witness’s description of the assailant (noting a mole) was questionable given the distance, the assailant’s cap, and the sudden, fleeting nature of the event. The constitutional presumption of innocence prevails over an uncertain identification. The Court reversed and set aside the CA decision and ordered accused-appellant’s immediate release unless detained for another lawful cause.