PHILIPPINES, VS. ROMAN MENESES Y

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered convicting the accused of the crime of Murder, and he is hereby sentenced with the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. The accused is hereby ordered to indemnify and pay the heirs of the victim Cesar Victoria the sum of P 50,000.00 as damages sustained by them on account of the victims death. [9] In this appeal, appellant assigns to the trial court the following errors: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING EXCULPATORY WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. III ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT APPELLANT IS GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM OF MURDER INSTEAD OF HOMICIDE ONLY. [10] The issue in the instant case is credibility. The judgment of appellants conviction is anchored entirely on the testimony of the single eyewitness, Christopher Victoria, who identified appellant as the one who he allegedly saw stab his father. We find that the trustworthiness of the identification of appellant by Christopher is dubious, raising reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as to appellants culpability. It was established that the crime took place in the wee hours of the morning, before the crack of dawn, at around three oclock. [11] The court can take judicial notice of the laws of nature, [12] such as in the instant case, that at around three in the morning during the Christmas season, it is still quite dark and that daylight comes rather late in this time of year. [13] Nowhere in the description of the crime scene by witness SPO3 Mendoza in his testimony was it established that there was light or illumination of any sort by which Christopher could see the attacker. SPO3 Mendoza testified thus: Q - You said you found the body of the victim, what (sic) did you found (sic) at the body of the victim? A - We found the body of the victim on adjacent makeshift of the No. 1324. Q - The makeshift room which was adjacent to the house, whose house of that makeshift was adjacent? A - It was owned by Cesar Victoria and his son Christopher. Q - You said you interviewed a couple named Ardiete, where did you see this couple? A - Inside the house, sir. Q - How far is that house to the house of the victim? A - Only a division within that house, only division separate. COURT: Q - You said that the makeshift was adjacent to the house, does the Court understand from you that the makeshift was attach to the house? A - Part of the house, Your Honor. Q - Is there an opening on it? A - Yes, Your Honor. Q - How wide? A - The main door going to the house. Q - Did you come to know, what that makeshift was for? A - It was occupied intended for the victim Cesar Victoria and his son, they actually rented the space. Q - So the place where you found the victim is a place which can be used for living purposes? A - Yes, sir. Q - How did you come to that conclusion? A - Because that