G.R. No. 136113 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. WILLIE QUIBIDO, RUEL QUIBIDO, AND JOHN DOE, (ALL AT LARGE)

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, finding herein accused RUEL QUIBIDO and RODOLFO MONTEMAYOR alias "Dolfo" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of "Robbery with Homicide" punishable under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance present in this case, said accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of "RECLUSION PERPETUA" with all the accessory penalties provided by law, and to indemnify the heirs of the victim Sofio Verguela the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral and exemplary damages and to pay the costs. Appellant Rodolfo Montemayor interposed the following assignment of errors: I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE DESPITE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. II THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF EMIL BERGANIO AND IN NOT APPRECIATING THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED APPELLANT. The trial court accorded full faith and credence to the testimony of the lone prosecution witness, Emil Berganio. On the other hand, appellant Rodolfo Montemayor contends in his appeal 1) that the execution of Emil Berganio's sworn statement after his arrest on November 11, 1994 cast serious doubt on his credibility; 2) that the physical evidence on record contradicts the testimony of Emil Berganio on material points; 3) that Berganio's testimony is highly incredible inasmuch as it contradicts human experience; and 4) that defense witness Pedrito de Lara categorically stated that the appellant was not one of the two companions of Willie Quibido, Jr. and Ruel Quibido in the evening of February 15, 1993. [22] Consequently, the fate of the instant appeal rests on the determination of the credibility of prosecution witness Emil Berganio. It is a well-settled rule that testimonial evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must foremost be credible in itself. [23] The test to determine the value or credibility of testimony of a witness is whether or not such is in conformity with common knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind. [24] Prosecution witness Emil Berganio confessed that he was in the company of herein appellant Rodolfo Montemayor alias Dolfo, Willie Quibido, Jr. and Ruel Quibido when they robbed and killed Sofio Verguela inside his house. in Bagong Silang, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro in the evening of February 15, 1993. However, the fact that he may have been a co-conspirator in the commission of the offense is not in itself sufficient to dilute the credibility of, much less a ground to disregard altogether, his testimony. The general rule is that the testimony of a co-conspirator is not sufficient for conviction unless supported by other evidence. The reason is that it comes from a polluted source. It must be received with caution because, as is usual with human nature, a culprit,