People vs. Adoviso

The Court held that illumination produced by a kerosene gas lamp is sufficient to allow the identification of persons, and the delay of an eyewitness in identifying the accused does not impair credibility when sufficiently explained by fear. Furthermore, the results of a polygraph or lie detector test are inadmissible to establish the guilt or innocence of an accused because the procedure has not attained scientific acceptance as a reliable means of ascertaining truth or deception.

On February 18, 1990, in Sitio Tan-agan, Bula, Camarines Sur, Rufino Agunos and Emeterio Vasquez were shot and killed inside and around the victims' camalig (granary/house). The assailants fired through the bamboo slats of the structure. Rufino was sleeping on a papag (bed), while Emeterio was shot as he descended the stairs carrying a gas lamp. Bonifacio Vasquez and his son Elmer witnessed the shooting from the yard, identifying Pablo Adoviso, a CAFGU member, as the unmasked gunman.

• The Incident: On February 18, 1990, at around 8:00 PM, Emeterio Vasquez and his grandson Rufino Agunos were at their camalig in Sitio Tan-agan. Rufino was asleep on a papag near the awning, while Emeterio was preparing coffee. A volley of gunshots erupted from outside the camalig, fired through the bamboo slats. Rufino was hit multiple times while lying down; Emeterio was hit as he went down the stairs carrying a gas lamp. Both died the next morning from multiple gunshot wounds.
• The Eyewitnesses: Bonifacio Vasquez (Emeterio's son) and his 16-year-old son Elmer heard the shots from the adjacent house and rushed to the yard. Bonifacio hid behind a coconut tree eight meters away. He saw appellant Pablo Adoviso, who was unmasked and holding a long firearm wrapped in a sack, shoot Rufino and then Emeterio. Elmer also saw five armed men, four of whom were masked, firing at the camalig; he identified the unmasked assailant as Adoviso. Both witnesses recognized Adoviso because of the gas lamps inside the camalig and the one carried by Emeterio, and because they had known Adoviso for years.
• The Defense: Adoviso claimed he was drinking with companions in Sitio Palsong from 7:00 PM to 11:00 PM that night. He presented corroborating witnesses for his alibi. He also presented a police certification stating the victims initially claimed they did not know their attackers, and an NBI polygraph report indicating no deceptive reactions.
• Rebuttal: Bonifacio explained he did not immediately identify Adoviso to the police because he was afraid of the appellant, who was an armed CAFGU member, and was confused by the events.

The People of the Philippines maintained that the eyewitness identifications were credible and sufficient to overcome the defense of alibi. The prosecution argued that the lighting conditions from the gas lamps were sufficient for identification, the witnesses were familiar with the appellant, and the delay in identifying him was justified by fear and did not impair credibility.

Adoviso argued that the eyewitnesses could not have positively identified him due to poor lighting, claiming the gas lamp inside the camalig was placed inside a can directing light upwards, and the lamp carried by Emeterio was too small. He contended that it was improbable for him to be the only unmasked assailant. He asserted that Bonifacio's failure to immediately identify him to the police was a "positive sign" of misidentification or fabrication, and that Bonifacio had a motive to implicate him due to a land dispute with the Galicia family. Adoviso invoked alibi, claiming he was in a different sitio at the time of the killings, and argued that the negative result of his polygraph test should be given weight to exonerate him.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues: Whether the eyewitnesses could have positively identified the appellant given the alleged poor illumination and their delay in reporting his identity. Whether the negative result of a polygraph test is admissible to establish the innocence of the accused. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: On Identification and Illumination: The Court ruled that illumination from a kerosene lamp or gas lamp is sufficient for identification. The defense's claim that the lamp was covered by a can was belied by the trial record, which showed the lamp was placed on the floor during the incident and only covered when the victims were transported to the hospital. The bamboo slats, placed four to six inches apart, did not obstruct the view. The witnesses' familiarity with the appellant—Bonifacio having known him for ten years and Elmer for four—minimized the possibility of mistaken identity. On Delay in Reporting: The Court held that the delay in reporting the appellant's identity did not impair Bonifacio's credibility. The delay was sufficiently explained by Bonifacio's fear of the appellant, who was an armed CAFGU member. There is no standard rule for how witnesses must react to a frightful event. On Polygraph Tests: The Court ruled that polygraph test results are inadmissible for establishing guilt or innocence. Following American jurisprudence and the precedent in People v. Daniel, the Court held that the polygraph has not attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. On Alibi: The Court held that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses. Furthermore, the appellant failed to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene, as the distance between his claimed location and the crime scene could be negotiated in 35 minutes by vehicle or three hours on foot. On Treachery: The Court found that treachery qualified the killings as murder. The victims were totally unaware of the impending assault: Rufino was sleeping, and Emeterio was going down the stairs when shot, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the offenders.

• Credibility of Eyewitness Identification under Artificial Illumination — Illumination produced by a kerosene lamp, wick lamp, or flashlight is sufficient to allow the identification of persons. An attack on witness credibility based solely on lighting conditions is unmeritorious when visibility is favorable and witnesses are unbiased. The Court applied this by affirming that the two gas lamps provided sufficient illumination for Bonifacio and Elmer to identify the appellant.
• Inadmissibility of Polygraph Test Results — The results of a polygraph or lie detector test are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of an accused, whether offered by the prosecution or the defense. This is because the polygraph has not yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. The Court applied this by disregarding the NBI polygraph report that indicated the appellant was not deceptive.
• Treachery (Alevosia) — There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The attack must be sudden, unexpected, and without warning on an unarmed victim who has not given the slightest provocation. The Court applied this because Rufino was asleep and Emeterio was descending stairs, rendering them completely unaware and defenseless against the sudden shooting.

• "Illumination produced by kerosene lamp or a flashlight is sufficient to allow identification of persons. Wicklamps, flashlights, even moonlight or starlight may, in proper situations be considered sufficient illumination, making the attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on that ground unmeritorious."
• "However, American courts almost uniformly reject the results of polygraphs tests when offered in evidence for the purposes of establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime, whether the accused or the prosecution seeks its introduction, for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and ascertaining truth or deception."

• People v. Daniel, 86 SCRA 511 (1978) — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that much faith and credit should not be vested upon a lie detector test, as it is not conclusive.
• People v. Alshaika, 261 SCRA 637 (1996) — Cited for the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.
• People v. Cogonon, 262 SCRA 693 (1996) — Cited for the principle that when visibility conditions are favorable and witnesses are unbiased, their assertion regarding the identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted.
• People v. Mendoza, 223 SCRA 108 (1993) — Cited for the proposition that the failure of a witness to reveal at once the identity of the accused does not impair the witness's credibility.

• Article 14(16), Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery (alevosia) as a qualifying circumstance. The Court applied this provision to qualify the killings of Rufino Agunos and Emeterio Vasquez as Murder, given the sudden and unexpected nature of the attack on the unarmed and unaware victims.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.