G.R. No. 92847 , May 21, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Catalino Quiming y Lopez, Herminigildo Lamigo and Robin Estoesta, accused. Robin Estoesta, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On May 28, 1983, two dead bodies were found on a road shoulder in Barangay Carmay, Rosales, Pangasinan, having died from gunshot wounds. Sixteen empty shells were recovered. Investigation focused on three soldiers from the 152nd PC Company: Robin Estoesta, Herminigildo Lamigo, and Catalino Quiming. They had used a mini-cruiser jeep later found with a dented bumper and bloodstains. Upon interrogation, each accused pointed to another as the killer. Paraffin tests were positive for Estoesta and negative for Lamigo and Quiming. Ballistics tests showed empty shells came from firearms assigned to Quiming and Lamigo. All three were charged with double murder. Upon prosecution motion, Quiming was discharged to become a state witness over defense objection. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Estoesta guilty of double murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each offense, with indemnity. Lamigo was acquitted. Estoesta appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the discharge of accused Catalino Quiming to become a state witness was valid.
2. Whether the testimony of the state witness was credible, thereby proving the guilt of accused-appellant Robin Estoesta beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. Yes, the discharge of Quiming was valid. The requisites under Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court were satisfied: (a) absolute necessity for his testimony as the only eyewitnesses were the three accused; (b) no other direct evidence available; (c) his testimony could be substantially corroborated by autopsy and ballistics reports and by Lamigo’s testimony; (d) he did not appear to be the most guilty as neither Estoesta nor Lamigo pointed to him as the killer; and (e) no showing he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. The grant was within the trial court’s sound discretion.
2. Yes, Estoesta’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessment. Quiming’s testimony, substantially corroborated by Lamigo, established that Estoesta was the lone killer. The victims, hitchhikers, were shot while defenseless, qualifying the killings with treachery. However, evident premeditation and the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position were not proven. Discrepancies between Quiming’s sworn statement and trial testimony were minor and did not affect his overall veracity. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for each murder was proper, but civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 for each victim. The appealed judgment was AFFIRMED with modification.