A Regional Trial Court has acquitted the former barangay captain of Dampas district who also earned his keeps fixing transactions at the Land Transportation Office when he was accused of homicide in June 2009 arising from the killing of an employee of the LTO. Presiding Judge Pablo Magdoza of RTC Branch 48 freed Alfredo Ingles alias Pedoy and “Cap” in a 14-page decision promulgated on January 18 after more than three years of court litigation. The defense was represented by lawyer Alexander Lim of the Trabajo-Lim Law Office. The court in deciding the case zeroed in on the circumstantial evidence proffered by the prosecution which it cited as miserably inadequate and uncorroborated. With the prosecution’s failure to present an adequate and corroborated testimony, the court found no quantum of proof required for conviction in criminal case, i.e., proof beyond reasonable proof. The court, therefore, has no choice but to acquit the accused.

Ingles, said to be an LTO fixer before he is employed regularly as a casual employee at the LTO, was accused of killing one Apolinario Cordilla Reyes in June 2009 in the vicinity of the LTO. He is also the father of Dampas barangay captain Fredison Ingles. His alias “Kap” is in reference to his being a former barangay captain of Dampas. Using a 38 cal. revolver, the gunman killed the victim on the spot after taking a bullet on the head. During trial, the prosecution presented Dr. Apollo John Bernaldez, P/Supt. Romer Daguno, Jenny Villacojer, also an LTO employee and Ma. Verna Capacio-Reyes, wife of the victim. In his testimony, Dr. Bernaldez, medical officer V of the city health office, said saw the dead body of the victim lying on the grounds face down near a passenger bus in front of the LTO. For his part, the police officer testified that as a forensic firearm examiner, he was instructed by his superior to examine a slug recovered in the crime scene. His examination showed that the slug has the same characteristics of caliber .38/.357 bullets fired from caliber .38/.357 firearm; and that he signed a Firearm Identification Report.

Villacojer, for her part, who was assigned in the LTO records section at that time said on the day the killing took place, she was inside their office looking for certain documents and after she found the document, she rested for a while and fell asleep. She was awakened at about 7:00 PM the same day. When she learned someone knocking at the main door, she opened it, she saw Lucivic Fernandez and Leslie Tumalon. A few minutes later, they heard a gun burst and out of fear, they closed the door. When she and companions checked what happened outside, she said she saw an LTO Patrol Car leading to the Bohol Light. While she was about to go down in the hallway, she saw the feet of a person on the ground. She then proceeded to the location of the feet and when she was already near, she recognized that he was Apolinario Reyes, a co-employee of the LTO. Villacojer also declared that the victim was lying with his face up and when she got near him, he was no longer moving but she could see the blood oozing from the back of his head or nape.

She then saw the accused (whom she knew as Cap) sitting at the store and so, she went to him to ask for assistance, and the later told him in vernacular, “Naglalis man gud mi, nahinaykan nuon nako”. She, however, testified that there were no other persons when accused said this to her. Another prosecution witness presented was Capacio-Reyes. She testified that she is the wife of the victim and they have seven children. For the defense, Ingles denied killing Reyes. He testified that he knew the victim as an employee of the LTO. For his part, he told the court that he is always at the LTO vicinity because he was connected as an agent of an insurance company doing business at the LTO. According to the accused narration, since 2:00 PM in the afternoon of June 9, 2009, the day of the incident, he was at the store of Lita Oclarit at Espuelas Extension with six of his friends whom he identified as Delfin Hingpit, Victoriano Estrosas, Dionisio Salvacion, Ireneo Lopez, Tito Ochavillo, and Rommel Chagas. At about 5:00PM that day, the group transferred to the store of Victoriano Estrosas, located infront of the gate of the provincial motor pool, since his plan at the time to play mahjong was not pushed through, as there were no available slots for players. Quoting extensively from constitutional guarantees about the accused presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the court noted that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.

The court added that this presumption prevails unless overturned by competent and credible proof. Indeed, to sustain a conviction, the guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Any doubt must be considered in his favor. Evidence showing a mere possibility of guilt is insufficient to warrant a conviction. (People v. Isdido Cormesario y Dacasin, G.R. No.127811, April 29, 1999). In the instant case, the court noted that there was no eyewitness to the crime, thus resorting to circumstantial evidence was inevitable. When the question of circumstantial evidence confronted the court to warrant a conviction, it found none. The court said, an uncorroborated circumstantial evidence is not certainly sufficient for conviction when the evidence itself is in serious doubt. While the two- witness rule applies only in cases specified by law, its application should be resorted to if the testimony of the sole witness on circumstantial matters leaves much to be desired. Citing several grounds why the case was dismissed in favor the accused, Judge Magdoza quoted a case in People vs Binamira, G.R. No. 110397, August 14, 1997, to wit:

“In closing, we must stress that mere suspicions and speculations can never be the basis of a conviction in a criminal case. Our Constitution and our laws dearly value individual life and liberty and require no less than moral certainty or proof beyond reasonable doubt to offset the presumption of innocence. Courts—both trial and appellate—are not called upon to speculate on who committed the crime. The task of courts, rather, is to determine whether the prosecution has submitted sufficient legally admissible evidence showing beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed, and the accused committed it. In this case, the prosecution has failed to present adequate proof demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Armando Binamira y Alayon was the culprit who robbed and killed Jessie Flores y Clerdera”.