Snyedy Uy Liquete

G.R. Nos. 182555/G.R. No. 185123/G.R. No. 187745. September 7, 2010 Lenido
Lumanog, et al. Vs. People of the Philippines/Cesar Fortuna Vs. People of the
Philippines/People of the Philippines Vs. SPO2 Cesar Fortuna y Abudo, et al.

Facts:

On June 13, 1996 Abadilla was murdered while driving his black Honda accord along
katipunan ave. Eye witness account stated that there were 4 men armed with handguns
surrounded the said car and started shooting the victim. after the shooting the assailants fled the
scene. During the investigation the police apprehended Joel De Jesus, in his statement Joel
identified Larry, Tisoy, Ram De Jesus, Cesar who was a police man and four others as the
persons who were part of the ambush. He further testified that he was just a look out while it
was Ram who was the master mind. He stated that they used a owner type jeep and a L-300 van
and carried a .45 and 9mmcaliber pistols. According to him after the shooting the group
separated: the owner type jeep he was driving was headed to santolan; Ceasar's group split so
that 3 of them rode the l-300van while the other 3 boarded a stolen kia pride car from a woman
driver. upon reaching the commonwealth ave. and tandang sora, they stooped at glori supermaket
where all the firearms used were returned to the group. It was already dust when Lorenzo
dropped him off at the tricycle parking area at camaro st. Jeol further stated that the ambush-slay
was planned 3 day before. Loenzo Delos Santos also executed a written statement attesting to the
ambush slaying and stated that he too was only a look out and that Ram threatened his family
also if he did not join them. he further stated the group did not pay him after the incident.

In his karagdagang salay say dated June 21, 199, security guard Fredie Alejo positively
identified Joel and Lorenzo during a police line-up . Alejo also confirmed that they were the ones
he saw at his guard post before the shooting incident. they were also the one who shouted that no
one should interfere at the time the four armed men were firing shots at Abadilla.

SPO2 Cesar Fortuna y Abudo, Rameses de Jesus y Calma, Lorenzo delos Santos y Dela
Cruz, Lenido Lumanog y Luistro, Joel de Jesus y Valdez and Arturo Napolitano y Caburnay
were charged in Criminal Case No. Q-96-66679 with theft of the alleged gun owned by the late
Abadilla (Colt Mark IV cal .45 pistol SN-66BS574), a gold-plated Omega wristwatch and a
wallet containing an undetermined amount of cash plus calling cards and other important papers,
all of which were supposedly stolen by them after killing Abadilla.

On the other hand, Lorenzo delos Santos y Dela Cruz, SPO2 Cesar Fortuna y Abudo and
Rameses de Jesus y Calma were respectively charged with illegal possession of firearms
(Presidential Decree No. 1866) in Criminal Case Nos. Q-96-66680, Q-96-66682 and Q-96-
66683.
 In view of the dismissal of the illegal possession of fire arms and theft, the discussion of
the trial court was confined to the case of murder against Fortuna, Lumanog, Joel De Jesus,
Rameses De Jesus and Santos. On august 11, 1999, the trial court promulgated a joint decision
dated july 30,1999 which acquitted Arturo Napolitano and Lorenzo Delos Santos while
providing guilty verdicts to the rest with damages. the accused filed a motion the CA arguing
that the CA gave more weight on the testimony of Ajelo. the CA denied the motion. hence the
petition to the SC.

Issue

whether or not the CA was justified for giving more credit to the testimony of Alejo and
if its sufficient to render a guilty verdict.

Held

the Sc affirmed the Ca's stating that the testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to
support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial
court. when it comes to credibility of witnesses, the Court accords the highest respect, even
finality, to the evaluation made by the lower court of the testimonies of the witnesses presented
before it. This holds true notwithstanding that it was another judge who presided at the trial. It is
axiomatic that the fact alone that the judge who heard the evidence was not the one who rendered
the judgment, but merely relied on the record of the case, does not render his judgment erroneous
or irregular. This is so even if the judge did not have the fullest opportunity to weigh the
testimonies, not having heard all the witnesses speak or observed their deportment and manner of
testifying. the court further stated that Alejo had the better view because of his guards post and
that unlike the other witnesses he has no bias towards the case and has nothing to gain over an
acquittal.