View full case

PEOPLE v. NOMER VELASCO Y PANGILINAN

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Nomer Velasco, together with Reynaldo Endrina and Ernesto Figueroa, were charged with the crime of Murder. The incident occurred on February 20, 1994, in the City of Manila, Philippines. The prosecution's lone eyewitness, Leonardo Lucaban, testified that he saw Danilo Valencia being grabbed by a man, whom he later recognized as Valencia. Two other individuals approached Valencia and asked him why he did not shoot the person he had grabbed earlier. Valencia replied that he did not have a gun and continued walking away. Lucaban then observed one of the individuals who questioned Valencia follow him and stab him in the back. Lucaban ran towards a guardhouse and heard gunshots. The prosecution presented witnesses, including Carmencita Valencia (the victim's wife) and Dr. Florante Baltazar (the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy examination), to support their case. The defense denied the accusation and raised alibi as a defense. The accused, including Velasco, testified that they were at home sleeping during the time of the incident and did not know the victim or the eyewitness. After the trial, the trial court found Velasco guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused-appellant Nomer Velasco was positively identified by the lone eyewitness, Leonardo Lucaban.

  2. Whether the testimony of Leonardo Lucaban, filled with alleged inconsistencies, should be relied upon.

  3. Whether the defense of alibi presented by the accused-appellant was sufficient.

  4. Whether the accused-appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

  1. Identification: The Supreme Court ruled that Leonardo Lucaban positively identified Nomer Velasco as the assailant. Despite an initial failure to identify Velasco in court, Lucaban later identified him with certainty, even under cross-examination.

  2. Testimony Credibility: The Court found that minor inconsistencies in Lucaban's testimony did not undermine his credibility. It affirmed the trial court’s assessment, valuing direct observation of witness comportment during testimony.

  3. Alibi: The Court held that Velasco’s alibi was not credible. His wife’s corroboration was taken with skepticism, and the close proximity between the crime scene and Velasco’s home made it plausible that he was present at the crime scene.

  4. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Court concluded that the evidence against Velasco was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Witness Credibility: Minor inconsistencies in a witness's testimony do not necessarily compromise their overall credibility.

  • Alibi Defense: An alibi must show not only that the accused was elsewhere when the crime occurred but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene.

  • Positive Identification: Positive identification by a credible witness overrides the defense of alibi.

  • Treachery (Alevosia): There is treachery when an attack is sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any chance to defend or retaliate.

  • Trial Court’s Findings: Appellate courts give significant weight to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility since the trial court has the advantage of directly observing witness demeanor.