FACTS:
In the early morning of December 15, 1991, Cesar Victoria was stabbed to death in his rented makeshift room in Tondo, Manila. His seven-year-old son, Christopher Victoria, witnessed the incident and testified that he saw his father being stabbed in the heart with a "veinte nueve." The police investigator, SPO3 Jaime Mendoza, arrived at the crime scene and saw the victim's bloodied body with multiple stab wounds. Christopher could not initially identify or describe the attacker, but later identified the appellant, Roman Meneses, as the person who stabbed his father. Christopher provided a statement at the precinct, and a confrontation was arranged between Christopher and appellant, where Christopher again identified appellant as the assailant. Appellant was arrested on December 25, 1991, based on the report of his wife, Angelina Victoria, who implicated him in the crime. Appellant denied the charges and interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. He claimed that he was in Pampanga during the time of the incident and was arrested without a warrant after being implicated by his wife.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of Murder and was sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua by the trial court. The appellant appealed the decision, alleging several errors. The main issue in the case was the credibility of the sole eyewitness, Christopher Victoria, who identified the appellant as the one who allegedly stabbed his father.
The crime occurred in the early morning, before dawn, at around three o'clock. It was established that the crime scene was a makeshift room measuring about three by five square meters. There was no mention of a window that could have allowed light into the room. The appellant argued that it was improbable for a young boy, just roused from sleep and in a dark room, to accurately identify the attacker, as Christopher did. The prosecution failed to present evidence that could support Christopher's identification.
There was also a discrepancy in the testimony of SPO3 Mendoza, the police officer who interviewed Christopher. Initially, SPO3 Mendoza testified that Christopher could not tell him who the suspect was or provide a description. However, during re-direct examination, SPO3 Mendoza stated that Christopher mentioned appellant's name, Roman Meneses.
In this case, the credibility of the testimony of SPO3 Mendoza, a witness for the prosecution, and the reliability of the identificatio
ISSUES:
-
Whether the trial court erred in not giving exculpatory weight to the evidence adduced by the defense.
-
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of the crime charged notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
-
On the assumption that appellant is guilty, whether the trial court erred in convicting him of murder instead of homicide only.
RULING:
-
The trustworthiness of the identification of appellant by Christopher is dubious, creating reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt.
-
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt due to the improbability of the eyewitness's testimony and the flawed identification process.
-
The issue of downgrading the charge from murder to homicide was not directly addressed as the appellant was acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt.
PRINCIPLES:
-
Credibility of Witness Testimony: Evidence is credible when it aligns with common human experience and observation under the given circumstances.
-
Suggestiveness in Identification: Identifications made during a "show-up" procedure, where the witness is presented with a single suspect, are considered flawed and suggestive, thus unreliable.
-
Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and conviction cannot rest solely on the weakness of the defense.
-
Constitutional Rights: Admissions of guilt must be made with benefit of counsel to be admissible as evidence.
-
Motive vs. Identification: Motive alone, without credible positive identification, cannot be a basis for conviction.