Rule 130- object evidence (section 1) not finding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the

he prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused-

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUCIANO appellant beyond reasonable doubt in the two cases. Held: No. the instant
JUMAMOY Y AÑORA, alias “JUNIOR”, accused-appellant. G.R. No. appeal is bereft of any merit. The accused’s failure to point out to this Court,
101584. April 7, 1993. with specific references to the transcripts of the stenographic notes of the
testimonies of the witnesses, the so-called inconsistencies committed by the
Doctrine: It is settled that the issue of credibility is to be resolved primarily three (3) prosecution witnesses, and to make statements of facts, though he
by the trial court because it is in a better position to decide the question, started the Appellant’s Brief with the heading 12 “Statement of Facts And of
having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of the Case,” betrays an honest realization of the futility of this appeal and not
testifying during the trial. Thus, its findings on the matter of the credibility of merely the lack of diligence or zeal in the pursuit thereof which, incidentally,
witnesses are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on is likewise eloquently evidenced therein.
appeal in the absence of any showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which would It is settled that the issue of credibility is to be resolved primarily by the trial
have affected the result of the case. court because it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard
For conviction to lie, it is enough that the prosecution establishes by proof the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the accused is during the trial. Thus, its findings on the matter of the credibility of
the author thereof. The production of the weapon used in the commission of witnesses are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on
the crime is not a condition sine qua non for the discharge of such a burden appeal in the absence of any showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or
for the weapon may not have been recovered at all from the assailant. If the misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which would
rule were to be as proposed by the accused, many criminals would go scot- have affected 13 the result of the case. In the absence of evidence manifesting
free and much injustice would be caused to the victims of crimes, their any ill motive on the part of the witnesses for the prosecution, it logically
families and society. In the instant case, it was established with moral follows that no such improper motive could have existed and that,
certainty that the accused attacked, assaulted and shot the victim Rolando corollarily, their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. Indeed, if an
Miel with an unlicensed firearm, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple accused had nothing to do with the crime, it is against the natural order of
gunshot wounds which caused his death. Such proof was all that was needed events and of human nature and against the presumption of good faith that a
for the conviction of the accused. (this doctrine related to object evidence, prosecution witness would falsely testify against the former.
the firearm is the object)
Nor can we agree with the accused that it was indispensable for the
ER: Two (2) separate informations for “Murder” and “Qualified Illegal prosecution to introduce and offer in evidence the firearm which was used in
Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions (sic)” were filed by the Office of the the killing of the victim. There is no law or rule of evidence which requires
Provincial Fiscal of Bohol with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagbilaran the prosecution to do so; there is also no law which prescribes that a ballistics
City against accused Luciano Jumamoy y Añora, alias Junior; they were examination be conducted to determine the source and trajectory of the
docketed as Criminal Case No. 5064 and Criminal Case No. 5065, bullets. For conviction to lie, it is enough that the prosecution establishes by
respectively, and were raffled off to Branch 3 thereof. The prosecution proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the
presented Dr. Hector Enriquez, Bonifacio Ayag, Lino Gudes, Jr., Artemio accused is the author thereof. The production of the weapon used in the
Panganiban, Jr. (Supervising Ballistician, NBI, Region VII), Alfredo Alforque, commission of the crime is not a condition sine qua non for the discharge of
Sgt. Misericordio Sapong, Rodrigo Aparicio, Pfc. Segundo Requirme and such a burden for the weapon may not have been recovered at all from the
Felisa Miel as witnesses for its evidence in chief, and Leandro Tirol and assailant. If the rule were to be as proposed by the accused, many criminals
Luisito dela Torre for purposes of rebuttal. On the other hand, the defense would go scot-free and much injustice would be caused to the victims of
presented the accused, Manuelito Cajes and Ramon Micutuan as its crimes, their families and society. In the instant case, it was established with
witnesses for its evidence in chief, and the accused himself in surrebuttal. moral certainty that the accused attacked, assaulted and shot the victim
RTC: disregarded the accused’s defense of alibi (he was in cebu city at the Rolando Miel with an unlicensed firearm, thereby inflicting upon the latter
time the crime was committed and that the prosecution failed to present as multiple gunshot wounds which caused his death. Such proof was all that
evidence the firearm used in killing the victim) and found him guilty beyond was needed for the conviction of the accused.
reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Issue: W/N the lower court erred in
Facts: Appellant Luciano Jumamoy and the victim Rolando Miel were once a boat, the M/V Sweet Roro, for Manila and stayed in the house of his
friends and belonged to the same ‘barkada’ until sometime in 1970 when the brother Abundio in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. He stayed there for seven
former was stabbed by the latter on his left forearm. As a result, appellant’s (7) months and departed for Inabanga only upon hearing that he had been
left arm was deformed, despite medical attendance, because the main vein of named a suspect in the killing of Rolando Miel; he arrived in 7 Inabanga on 9
his left arm was severely cut. Since then the two had not met each other, as November 1987.
the victim avoided appellant.
The accused did not, however, present Feliciano Cenita as a witness despite
In the evening of April 1, 1987, the victim and his younger brother Edgar, his (accused’s) repeated manifestation of his intention to do so and the
together with three other companions, went to the Cultural Center of court’s liberality in granting his request for postponement for the said
Inabanga, Bohol, where a ‘disco’ dance was being held in connection with purpose. Instead, “out of the blue, the accused . . . presented one Ramon
the commencement exercises of St. Paul Academy. However, upon reaching Micutuan . . . to corroborate his claim that in the evening of April 1, 1987, he
the premises of the Center, the victim’s brother and a companion stayed was in Cebu City 8 driving a passenger jeepney.”
behind and sat on a concrete bench, as the victim and their other companions
proceeded. RTC: disregarded the accused’s alibi and found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.
Upon reaching the Center, the victim and his companions joined three other
members of their ‘barkada’ watching the disco outside. The victim and three Issue: W/N the lower court erred in not finding that the prosecution failed
of his friends were leaning against a concrete post of the Center conversing to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt in the
and watching the ‘disco,’ when all of a sudden appellant appeared in front two cases.
obliquely to the right of the victim and fired three (3) successive shots at the
latter, who slumped and fell to the ground. Held: No. the instant appeal is bereft of any merit. The accused’s failure to
point out to this Court, with specific references to the transcripts of the
Thereafter, the people inside and outside the Center scampered for safety. stenographic notes of the testimonies of the witnesses, the so-called
However, on his way to escape, appellant passed by the victim’s brother inconsistencies committed by the three (3) prosecution witnesses, and to
Edgardo and a companion who were then sitting on a bench about 60 meters make statements of facts, though he started the Appellant’s Brief with the
away from the Center. When appellant got near the two, the former poked heading 12 “Statement of Facts And of the Case,” betrays an honest
his gun at the victim’s brother, and uttered, ‘Unsa, laban ka?’ (What now, are realization of the futility of this appeal and not merely the lack of diligence or
you taking sides?’). The two remained silent, as appellant ran behind a house zeal in the pursuit thereof which, incidentally, is likewise eloquently
and into the bushes when he saw the Mayor approaching. evidenced therein.

Meanwhile, the victim’s sister Zeny, who was then inside the Center, came to The instant appeal rests principally on the issue of the credibility of the
his (sic) brother’s rescue. With the help of other people, she brought her witnesses for the prosecution and, to a lesser extent, on the alleged
brother to a hospital, but the latter expired before arrival thereat. suppression of evidence and failure to present in evidence the firearm used
by the accused.
The trial court disregarded the accused’s defense of alibi.
The latter testified that he had left Inabanga, Bohol for Cebu City on 29 It is settled that the issue of credibility is to be resolved primarily by the trial
March 1987 to look for employment; he claims to have boarded a motor court because it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard
banca, the M/B Roxan, which left for Cebu City from Buenavista, Bohol at the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
9:00 o’clock in the morning of that date. The motor banca supposedly during the trial. Thus, its findings on the matter of the credibility of
reached Cebu City at 11:00 o’clock on the same day. He recounts that he witnesses are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on
stayed in the house of a friend, Feliciano Cenita, in Pasil, Cebu City from 1 appeal in the absence of any showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or
April to 4 April 1987. While in Cebu City, he drove, as a reserve driver, the misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which would
passenger jeepney owned and driven by Cenita under the so-called have affected 13 the result of the case.
boundary system. In the evening of 4 April 1987, Jumamoy avers that he took
The accused was positively identified by prosecution witnesses Lino Gudes.
Alfredo Alforque and Rodrigo Aparicio is beyond dispute. These three had Against the overwhelming evidence consisting of his positive identification
known the accused long before the incident; moreover, the place where the as the author of Rolando Miel’s death, accused has nothing to offer but alibi.
shooting took place, the cultural center, was sufficiently lighted. Nor was any It is a fundamental judicial dictum that the defense of alibi cannot prevail
motive ascribed by the accused to these witnesses to show why they would over the positive identification of the accused. Besides, his alibi is obviously
falsely testify against him. fabricated. He was caught lying through his teeth when during rebuttal, it
was shown through the testimony of Leandro Tirol, owner of the M/B
In the absence of evidence manifesting any ill motive on the part of the Roxan, that he (Jumamoy) could not have left—as he had vigorously insisted
witnesses for the prosecution, it logically follows that no such improper —on board the said vessel for Cebu City on 29 March 1987 because the same
motive could have existed and that, corollarily, their testimonies are worthy was not authorized by its franchise to travel on that day, a Sunday. In an
of full faith and credit. Indeed, if an accused had nothing to do with the effort to dodge this fatal blow, the accused took the witness stand on
crime, it is against the natural order of events and of human nature and surrebuttal to change the date of his supposed 22 departure to 30 March
against the presumption of good faith that a prosecution witness would 1987. Moreover, despite his assurances that he would present as his witness
falsely testify against the former. Feliciano Cenita of Pasil, Cebu City —in whose house he allegedly stayed
from 1 April to 7 April 1987 —for which reason the trial court accommodated
The claimed inconsistencies are on minor, if not inconsequential or trivial, his requests for postponements, accused never did so. No acceptable
matters. Settled is the rule that discrepancies on minor matters do not impair explanation had been offered to justify the failure of the said prospective
the essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole or detract witness to come to the rescue of the accused. Thus, the inevitable conclusion
from the witnesses’ honesty. These inconsistencies, which may be caused by is that either this Cenita is a fictitious person or that, if he exists, he was
the natural fickleness of memory, even tend to strengthen rather than unwilling to support the accused’s claim of alibi. If the accused had gone to
weaken the credibility of prosecution witnesses because they erase any Cebu City at all, it must have been after the incidentnot to look for
suspicion of rehearsed testimony. What is important is that the testimonies employment as he claimed, but to evade arrest. In fact, it appears that on 7
agree on the essential facts and that the respective versions corroborate and April 1987, he left for Manila.
substantially coincide with each other to make a consistent and 20 coherent
whole. The trial court correctly convicted the accused of Murder under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 5064. The killing was indeed
Nor can We agree with the accused that it was indispensable for the attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery, which is duly alleged
prosecution to introduce and offer in evidence the firearm which was used in the information.
in the killing of the victim. There is no law or rule of evidence which
requires the prosecution to do so; there is also no law which prescribes that Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Decision of Branch 3 of the Regional Trial
a ballistics examination be conducted to determine the source and Court of Tagbilaran City in Criminal Case No. 5064 and Criminal Case No.
trajectory of the bullets. For conviction to lie, it is enough that the 5065 finding the accused LUCIANO JUMAMOY y AÑORA, alias “JUNIOR,”
prosecution establishes by proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime guilty of the crimes charged therein, is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the
was committed and that the accused is the author thereof. The production modification as to the indemnity which is increased from P30,000.00 to
of the weapon used in the commission of the crime is not a condition sine P50,000.00 and the deletion of the words “life imprisonment” from the
qua non for the discharge of such a burden for the weapon may not have dispositive portion thereof.
been recovered at all from the assailant. If the rule were to be as proposed Costs against the accused.
by the accused, many criminals would go scot-free and much injustice SO ORDERED.
would be caused to the victims of crimes, their families and society. In the
instant case, it was established with moral certainty that the accused
attacked, assaulted and shot the victim Rolando Miel with an unlicensed
firearm, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple gunshot wounds which
caused his death. Such proof was all that was needed for the conviction of
the accused.