PEOPLE v.

VILLANUEVA REYES
FACTS:
1. Villanueva was charged of the crime of murder
for killing Otoleo Binayan Brabante.
a. On or about Nov. 16, 1996, with intent to
kill, evident premeditation and treachery
and armed with a knife, stabbed the
victim 3 times from behind which caused
his death.
2. On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
While the prosecution was adducing its
evidence, appellant escaped from detention on
Oct. 9 1997.
3. The lower court proceeded with the trial of the
case in absentia.
4. RTC- found Villanueva guilty of murder and
sentenced him to death, pay 50K for the death
of the victim, 600K actual damages and 1m for
the loss in earning and to pay the costs of
proceedings. Hence, this automatic review.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON RTC erred in giving full faith and credit to
the inconsistent or conflicting testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. NO
2. WON the trial court erred in convicting the
appellant of murder since the qualifying
circumstances
of
treachery,
evident
premeditation and nighttime are wanting.
a. WON the trial court erred in considering
the appellants escape as an aggravating
circumstance.
HELD:
FIRST ISSUE: Testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses:
TESTIMONIES OF MARIFE AND CHERYL:

Marife testified that the appellant and his group

arrived at the store around 12 am, but later on
declared that they arrived at around 12:45 am.
Marife on cross examination that her brother
Orland did not go out of is room when appellant
became unruly; on cross-examination, she
admitted that Orland went out of his room.
Marife: appellant had 3 companions; Cheryl: 4
companions
Marife: appellants companions were nearby
laughing when he stabbed Otoleo; Cheryl:
appellants companions were merely observing
the incident.
Marife: She rushed to help her brother; Cheryl:
She had to call Marife to inform her that Otoleo
was stabbed by the appellant.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
While the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses differed in some respects, the
inconsistencies and discrepancies referred to
collateral and minor matters.
The discrepancies are all insignificant and
inconsequential considering they had nothing to
do with the main scope of the inquiry the
murder allegedly committed by appellant.
Neither inconsistencies on trivial matters nor
innocent lapses affect the credibility of
witnesses and the veracity of their declarations.
o They may be even considered badges of
truth on material points in the testimony.
o Testimonies of witnesses must be
considered and calibrated in their
entirety
and
not
in
truncated
portions or isolated passages.
Although it is incumbent on the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, to justify acquittal based on
such ground, the doubt should relate to the

facts constitutive of the crime charged.

Discrepancies should touch on significant
matters crucial to the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
Testimonies of Marife and Cheryl were
corroborated on the material points of the
testimony of Dr. Garcia who conducted the post
mortem examination of the victims body.
Flight of the accused is competent evidence of
guilt and culpability, and, when unexplained,
flight is circumstance from which an inference of
guilt may ne drawn.
SECOND ISSUE:
Treachery present. Treachery is present when
the means, method or manner of the attack
employed by the accused assures no risk to
himself from any defensive or retaliatory act
which the victim might make.
Evident Premeditation not present. It must be
established with equal certainty and clearness
as the criminal act itself.

No evidence adduced to show that the

killing was the result of meditation,
calculation or resolution on his part.
o No proof that the appellant went to the
store with plans to kill Otoleo.
o Interval of 30 minutes too brief to have
enabled the appellants to ponder over the
consequences of his intended act.
Nighttime not present.
o Was not alleged in the information.
o No evidence that it facilitated the
commission of the crime.
LOWER
COURT
IMPROPERLY
CONSIDERED
APPELLANTS ESCAPE AS AN AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE.
o Enumeration of aggravating circumstance
is exclusive under Art. 14 of the RPC.
DISPOSITIVE: Affirmed with modification. Guilty of
murder. Sentenced to reclusion perpetua; pay 50k as
civil damages and 25k as temperate damages.
o