ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 134631. July 25, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. BANDY REPOLLO, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 25 2000.

G.R. No. 134631 (The People of the Philippines vs. Bandy Repollo and Tomas Repollo.)

For resolution by the Court is the motion for reconsideration filed by appellants, through counsel, on the decision, dated 04 May 2000, affirming the judgment of the trial court which has found appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt of murder but sentencing them to the reduced penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.

Appellants claim that the testimony of defense witness Manuel Diaz is allegedly more credible than the testimony of prosecution witness Mercedes Baybayan whereon their conviction is anchored.

This matter has been sufficiently dealt with by the Court in its decision. The discussion is here reiterated:

"x x x the Court will not hesitate to superimpose its own judgment over that of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of witnesses if there should appear a clear case of misapprehension by the latter of significant facts or circumstances that, otherwise, can warrant a completely variant result. (People vs. Nang, 289 SCRA 16.) Bearing this possibility in mind, the Court has closely reviewed the records; unfortunately for the accused-appellants, it finds not enough justification to reject and reverse the assessment made by the trial court. The records, in fact, appear to adequately substantiate the findings of the trial court in holding that -

"Mercedes S. Baybayan, was clear and positive, unswerving and sure that she saw her husband (Alfredo) left the card game table in the wake of Aurelia Ramos at Brgy.Nagsaag, San Manuel, Pangasinan on November 29, 1997 at about 9:00 P.M. - followed by Bandy Repollo and Tomas @ Candido Repollo. Afterwards, Tomas held the two (2) hands of Baybyan above his elbow, thereafter, Bandy stabbed Alfredo Baybayan's back three (3) times hitting Alfredo which caused him to fall to the ground. Alfredo Baybayan died as a result of the three (3) stabbing blows that he sustained. (Rollo, p. 84.)

"The failure of Mercedes to disclose right away to the police the identity of the malefactors could scarcely impair her credibility. (People vs, Lapay, 298 SCRA 62.) She explained that her mind was still much disturbed after the stabbing to death of her husband; nonetheless, she was positive that accused-appellants, whom she had known for a long time, were the malefactors who attacked her husband. She saw the episode unfold before her eyes since the place was well-lighted.

"The eyewitness account of Mercedes was corroborated by the physical evidence appearing in the AUTOPSY REPORT, dated 30 November 1997, of Dr. Asuncion Tuvera, i.e.; that the victim was stabbed three times at his back. The inaccurate date of October 1997 appearing in the transcript of stenographic notes, capitalized by accused-appellants to discredit Dr. Tuvera's testimony, was clearly a mere typographical error."

Appellants insinuate that the evidence for their conviction falls short of the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt apparently because of the Court's statement in the decision that: "The records in fact, appear to adequately substantiate findings of the trial court" as interpreting to mean that there is merely "substantial evidence."

Perhaps it should be emphasized that in resolving criminal cases before it, a court cannot rest its judicial conscience upon a conviction predicated on evidence that is less that moral certainty of guilt consistent with the requirement, by law, of proof beyond reasonable doubt. ¹ People vs. Pedla, 249 SCRA 687.Neither substantial evidence nor preponderance of evidence has ever become the court's yardstick in convicting criminals. The phraseology in the decision must not be taken out of context such as to mean anything else other than the fact that the records of the case adequately substantiate the findings of the trial court in holding that Mercedes Baybayan is a credible witness and has rendered a "matter of factly" account of the criminal incident in identifying appellants to be its perpetrators.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration should be, as it is so hereby, DENIED with finality.

Bellosillo, J., abroad on official business.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE