People v.

Cabiles
G.R. 125005
October 3, 2000
(Aspects of the Proceedings - due process in general)

Point of the Case:

The automatic review with appellants raising the following alleged errors of the
trial court:

*The Honorable Judge Joven Costales committed a grave abuse of discretion in having
participated actively in the prosecution of the case and as a result, he rendered a
biased judgment convicting both the accused of the crimes charged, that such
actuations of the honorable judge constitute a reversible error.
*By reason of bias, the honorable judge failed, as he did fail, to appreciate the
facts or circumstances of great weight and value (which if considered might alter
the outcome of the case) has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the same.
*The judge made official declaration in open court which made counsel believe to be
an order of the court, thus relying upon such declaration, counsel was therefore of
the honest evaluation that the defense of the accused had been fully established so
that he no longer proceeded to present additional exculpatory evidence.
*The lower court failed to consider the numerous inconsistent and contradicting
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
*THe judge declared that the testimony of Arman Pamarang's testimony is
categorical, spontaneous, and straightforward, which declaration only shows bias in
his decision.
*The Lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in not giving weight to the
testimonies of the two accused which were corroborated by disinterested, unbiased
and credible witnesses.

Facts of the Case:

Two persons went to the house of Moises Pamarang, Sr. Arman Pamarang, son of the
victim, saw the duo. Thinking that the two were interested in buying something from
their store, Arman went to their house and stood behind the two, whom he recognized
as appellants Emerito delos Reyes and Marcelo Cabiles. The victim's wife, Estelita
Pamarang, went to their front door, which served as the door of their store. She
recognized appellants delos Reyes and Cabiles standing outside, with her son Arman
behind them. Upon seeing Estelita, Cabiles muttered that he had something to tell
her husband. Estelita replied that her husband was asleep and asked them to return
the next day. However, the victim arrived and asked the appellants what they
wanted. Suddenly, Cabiles pulled out a handgun and shot the victim in the mouth.
The victim fell and delos Reyes shot the victim in the stomach. Cabiles fired
another shot and the two left. When the police arrived, Moises, Jr. informed them
that he knew the person who killed his father. Cabiles was pointed out as the
killer by Moises, Jr. However, Estelita failed to identify Cabiles as one of the
shooters. Moises, Jr. and Arman likewise failed to identify Cabiles. Cabiles ad
delos Reyes were brought to the police station for re-investigation. However, for
the second time, Estelita identified Cabiles as one of the killers. She also
identified delos Reyes as one of the gunmen. The appellants were placed in
detention and underwent paraffin test. Both yielded negative results. Complaints
were filed in the Municipal Trial Court of Urdaneta for Murder against Emerito
delos Reyes and Marcelo Cabiles; for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition
against both.

Issue:
Whether or not the guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt

Ruling:

*The appellants complained that the trial judge actively participated in the
prosecution of the case and thus rendered a biased judgment. Scrutiny of the
detailed questions asked by the trial judge, however, fails to disclose bias on
the part of the trial judge which would prejudice appellants. The questions were
clarificatory. It is a judge's prerogative to ask clarificatory queries to ferret
out the truth.
*The appellants also contend that because of the eagerness of the judge to convict
them, he overlooked certain facts, which if considered would affect the result of
the case. They also assail the failure of witness Estelita Pamarang to identify
Cabiles during the initial confrontation at the police station, just couple hours
after the fatal shooting. Equally stressed is the failure of Estelita, Arman, and
Moises, Jr. to identify delos Reyes as the other gunman during their confrontation
in the presence of police investigators. However, Estelita explained that her
failure to initially identify Cabiles as one of the men who shot her husband was
due to the change of the appellant's hairdo.THe trial court found the explanation
credible and convincing.
*Eyewitness identification constitute vital evidence and in most cases, decisive of
the success and failure of the prosecution. Yet, eyewitness identification is not
always reliable or accurate, given the possibility of misidentification. In
evaulating out-of-court identification, the adoption of the totality of
circumstances test when the following factors are considered: a) witness
opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; b) witness' degree of
attention at the time; c) the accuracy of any prior description given by the
witness; d) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness of the
identification; e) the length of time between the crime and the identification; f)
the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. Against this test, it is found
that Estelita Pamarang's identification of the appellants is of doubtful value. The
trial court had rushed the conviction of and the imposition of severe penalties on
the appellants. It should have scrutinized minutely the evidence for and against
them. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellants Cabiles and delos Reyes are acquitted for lack
of sufficient evidence to prove the charges against them beyond reasonable doubt.