G.R. No. 183703 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. FERNANDO SAMENIANO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding both Benedicto Felecidario, Jr. and Fernando Sameniano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder as charged in the information, hereby sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of Roberto delos Santos the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages. [6] Only accused-appellant interposed an appeal. The Ruling of the CA Before the CA, accused-appellant contended that the testimony of the lone witness, Norming, is not credible. It was accused-appellant's posture that Norming could not have witnessed the incident or identified the attackers since he testified that he turned his back while Aguilar hacked Roberto. It was, accused-appellant added, also very dark at that time; the incident allegedly happened around 10:00 p.m. and the attackers had flashlights. Accused-appellant further pointed out that there was no proof of his participation in the killing of the victim since Norming testified that he only saw Felicidario wrestled with Roberto while Aguilar hacked Roberto with a bolo. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of conspiracy. Lastly, accused-appellant insisted that while alibi is generally a weak defense, his alibi should have been given weight by the trial court because of the doubtful nature of the testimony of the lone eyewitness. [7] On the other hand, the People, represented by the Solicitor General, prayed for the conviction of accused-appellant and for the additional award of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity and PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the conviction with modification as follows: WHEREFORE , the decision subject of the instant appeal is hereby AFFIRMED with a modification as to the civil liability. Thus, in conformity with recent jurisprudence, the accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victim an additional P50,000 by way of civil indemnity. [8] Accused-Appellant's Assignment of Error Presented Before Us THE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT The Court's Ruling The appeal lacks merit. In his plea to be acquitted of the crime, accused-appellant attempts to cast doubt on the testimony of the lone prosecution eyewitness. Upon review of the records, however, we find eyewitness Norming's following account of how his cousin was killed convincing: PROS. CONTRERAS: Q: Mr. delos Santos, do you know the victim in this case Roberto de los Santos? A: Yes sir. Q: How are you related to him? A: We are first cousins. x x x x Q: What about the accused Fernando Sameniano, do you know him? A: Yes sir. Q: Would you kindly point him to us, if he is inside the courtroom today? A: (The witness pointed to a man who, when asked of his name, answered Fernando Sameniano.) Q: Tell us why do you know all these three accused? A: Because we are residing in one barangay. x x x x Q: Tell us where you were on August