View full case

PEOPLE v. ROMEO LEDESMA

FACTS:

Loreto Patricio Jr. was shot and killed in the evening of 7 August 1984 at Barangay Dayhagan, Pilar, Capiz. Romeo Ledesma, Fernando Bernal, and an unidentified person were charged with murder. Only Romeo Ledesma was tried and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay indemnity to the heirs of the deceased.

On the night of the incident, Loreto Patricio Jr. went outside his house to investigate the noise made by their dogs. His father and brother accompanied him. They encountered Fernando Bernal and Romeo Ledesma, who were known to them, stealing their carabao. Fernando fired a shot, missing all of them, and then Romeo fired, hitting Loreto Jr. and causing his death. The accused fled the scene. Loreto Sr. and Edilberto pursued them but were unsuccessful.

Loreto Jr. died from severe hemorrhage due to gunshot wounds. The killing was reported by the Patricios the following day. Fernando was arrested on 14 August 1984 and Romeo was arrested on 5 December 1984.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are credible

  2. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cast doubt on their truthfulness

  3. Whether the defense of alibi is valid

  4. Whether treachery attended the killing

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be credible. The fact that trees may have obstructed visibility in the area did not preclude the identification of the accused. The act of firing at the Patricios confirmed that the accused were recognized.

  2. nconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses are expected and do not necessarily impair credibility. The alleged disparities regarding the shape of the moon, time interval between shots, and distance between the accused and the Patricios before the shooting were not significant enough to detract from the essential veracity of their assertions.

  3. The defense of alibi was not proven because the accused failed to establish that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. The distance between his house and the crime scene was not significant. Additionally, his alibi was only attested to by his wife, which is generally unavailing if corroborated only by immediate relatives.

  4. The trial court erred in finding treachery as there were conditions necessary for treachery that were not met. The Patricios were afforded a chance to retreat or defend themselves when they saw the accused armed with pugakhang before the shooting. The killing was made on the spur of the moment when the accused lost composure after being caught stealing the carabao.

  5. As such, the accused was found guilty of homicide instead of murder and was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 8 years 4 months and 10 days of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years 8 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.