G.R. Nos. 122976-77 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, all considered, the Court finds all the three (3) accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and sentences each of them as follows: a) Accused REGANDO VILLONES y PASCASIO and EMERLITO N. SANTOS, there being no aggravating and mitigating circumstance, to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA; b) Accused RUEL N. SANTOS, appreciating the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority in his favor, being 16 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor as minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum. Likewise, all the accused are hereby ordered to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of GERARDO LONGASA in the amount of P8,500.00 as actual damages, and the additional sum of P50,000.00, as civil indemnity for the death of the said victim, and the costs of suit. Accused-appellants REGANDO, RUEL, and EMERLITO seasonably appealed to us. [21] In their Brief, accused-appellants REGANDO and EMERLITO, represented by the Public Attorney's Office, contend that the trial court committed the following errors: I ... IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE OTHERWISE UNCORROBORATED, INCREDIBLE AND FABRICATED TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS EDGARDO JIMENEZ. II ...IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT REGANDO VILLONES GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. III IN FINDING THAT THERE EXISTS CONSPIRACY IN THE CASE AT BAR. In his separate Brief, accused-appellant RUEL imputes upon the trial court the following errors: I. ...IN NOT HOLDING THAT EDGAR JIMENEZ IS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY ON THE PARTICIPATION OF RUEL SANTOS CONSIDERING HE WAS NOT AN EYEWITNESS AND HIS TESTIMONY IS, THEREFORE, HEARSAY. II ...IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED RUEL SANTOS WAS IN CONSPIRACY AMONG THE OTHER ACCUSED IN THE KILLING OF GERARDO LONGASA. III. ...IN DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF EMERLITO SANTOS. IV. ...IN DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF CONRADO GUNGON. All accused-appellants attack the credibility of lone eyewitness Edgar Jimenez. REGANDO and EMERLITO wonder why Edgar took a longer route through Javier II Street to get to Liwayway Street instead of just crossing the bridge that separated Duhat from Liwayway Street, which was shorter route. Another thing which they find illogical was Edgars failure to shout for help and to do anything to save his friend LONGASA. As to Edgars testimony that he was mauled by the accused, accused-appellants theorize that Edgar could have been a participant in "the rumble," which made him a biased and unreliable witness. Moreover, Edgar could not have witnessed the crime, as he was then running away from the scene to escape further injuries. Additionally, no one corroborated Edgars testimony; hence, it is self-serving. RUEL claims that Edgar Jimenez committed inconsistencies on material points, especially on who actually stabbed LONGASA and how many times he was so stabbed. Edgar was, likewise, unable to make up his mind