G.R. No. 96649 -50 July 1, 1997
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LYNDON V. MACOY, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On July 4, 1989, at about 12:30 a.m., Paul Ocampo, the manager of Bottom’s Up Beerhouse in Cebu City, was shot and killed. Accused-appellant Lyndon V. Macoy was arrested in front of the beerhouse by patrolmen who responded to a gunshot and commotion. The policemen found Macoy carrying a .38 snub-nosed paltik Smith and Wesson revolver, which he surrendered. Two cases were filed against him: one for murder and another for illegal possession of firearms. The trial court acquitted him of illegal possession but convicted him of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the victim’s heirs. The conviction was based on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Marcelo Tueco and Juancho Sanchez, who identified Macoy as the assailant, and on circumstantial evidence from other witnesses. Tueco testified he was about three meters away when he saw Macoy rush towards Ocampo and shoot him. Sanchez, a waiter, testified he felt something hard pressed on his head, heard a gunshot, and then saw Macoy retreating. Defense witness Dr. Renato Obra, a psychologist, testified that Macoy was suffering from drug addiction and positive auditory hallucination, and that Macoy had confessed to shooting Ocampo because Ocampo had refused him entry to the beerhouse the previous day. Macoy appealed, contending insufficient evidence, erroneous credence given to prosecution witnesses, inadmissibility of an extrajudicial confession to a policeman, and that the trial court’s finding that the surrendered gun was not the murder weapon should lead to acquittal.

ISSUE

The main issues are whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder, specifically: (1) the credibility of prosecution witnesses Tueco and Sanchez; (2) the admissibility and weight of Macoy’s alleged extrajudicial confession; and (3) the effect of the trial court’s finding that the surrendered gun was not the murder weapon.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. It held that the evidence was sufficient. The testimonies of Tueco and Sanchez were credible and consistent; Tueco clearly witnessed the shooting from a close distance. The Court found no error in the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. Macoy’s confession to Dr. Obra was admissible as a spontaneous statement to a doctor, not a custodial confession to law enforcement, and it corroborated the eyewitness accounts. The trial court’s finding that the surrendered gun was not the murder weapon did not negate guilt, as the conviction was based on direct eyewitness testimony, not the weapon. The trial court’s decision, while containing some unclear reasoning, was valid and appealable as it contained findings and conclusions of law. The indemnity to the victim’s heirs was increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).