Case Digest: People of the Philippines vs. Eleseo Cheng, et al.

FACTS:
 Accused-appellant Eleseo Cheng and his co-accused Salvador Sioco and Alejandro
Malubay were charged with 2 counts of murder, Yehia Aburawash, an Egyptian
National who had been previously detained in the Manila City Jail, and his companion,
Esperanza Viterbo. Later, the court found Malubay not guilty and acquitted him.
 At about 4:30 am of February 21, 1989, Emma Ruth Ilosco, one of the witness for the
prosecution, together with her companions having just came from a disco joint right
outside the vicinity of Manila City Jail
 Ilosco, however, stopped at a nearby Burger Machine stand to have the P100.00 broken
into smaller denominations she intended to give to her brother who was detained in
Manila City Jail.
 Ilosco testified that she was at the burger stand when she saw Cheng and Sioco shot the
victims. She saw Aburawash and Viterbo engaged in an argument with the accused-
appellant and his co-accused.
 She saw and heard the first gunfire from Cheng which caused Aburawash to fall to the
ground. Two shots quickly followed, one from Sioco and another from Cheng.
 Cheng and Sioco went after Viterbo who ran towards the burger stand, they told her
that she would be brought to a waiting cab. However, when two were already beside
her, they both shot her.
 Cheng and Sioco were convicted. On appeal, Cheng assailed the credibility of Ilosco,
claiming that she was a woman of loose morals.
ISSUE:
 Whether loose morals is a ground to discredit a witness.
HELD:
 No, LOOSE MORALS per se is not a ground to discredit a witness. There must be a
clear indication militating against her credibility other than her being a person of ill
repute. Otherwise stated, even a prostitute may be a competent witness to the extent
that even with her sole testimony an accused may be a duly convicted, provided that
such witness is not coached, her testimony is not rehearsed and all other counts worthy
of credence beyond unreasonable doubt.
The all too sweeping contention in accused-appellant’s motion for reconstruction that
it is improbable that Ilosco will tell the exact truth where there is the slightest motive
for testifying falsely as she would probably be willing to bring her evidence to market
as she was ready to offer her person for sale, presents a cynical and too dark an outlook
of a human person for acceptance. In the first place, Ilosco has not been shown to be a
person of ill repute. Then too, the reputation of this witness is not germane to this case.