Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
At the trial, Glen, Willy, Abet, Tim and Donald testified for the prosecution
relating what happened to them and pointing to their attackers whom they
saw and identified because their masks fell off or they were not yet wearing
any masks. After the prosecution presented their evidence-in-chief, the
court granted the demurrer to the evidence filed by Peter and dismissed the
charge against him because he was not sufficiently identified and was not
mentioned in any of the documentary evidence of the prosecution.
Then after the trial proper when the accused have likewise testified and
presented their evidence for their defense, Richard, Noli, Rudy, Bal, Philip
and Peter were also acquitted. Only Vince, Francis, Chito, Jimmy and
Sonny were found guilty of murder and attempted murder and sentenced to
suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. They appealed the decision to
the Court of Appeals (CA) which however affirmed it. So they still appealed
to the Supreme Court for review where they contended among others that
both the RTC and the CA’s decision are wrong because they were not
sufficiently identified by the prosecution witnesses. Were they correct?
The SC said no. The trial court correctly held that considering the swiftness
of the incident, there would be slight inconsistencies in the statements of
the witnesses. It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the
occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there may be some details
which one witness may notice while others may not. The perfect dovetailing
of narration by different witnesses could even mean that their testimonies
were prefabricated and rehearsed. In this case the positive identification of
the accused by the different witnesses of the prosecution was due to the
fact that they either wore no masks or that their masks fell off.
It would be in line with human experience that a victim or an eyewitness to
a crime would endeavor to find ways to identify the assailant so that in the
event that he or she survives, the criminal could be apprehended. It is the
most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see the
looks and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which the
crime was committed. Most often the face of the assailants and their body
movements, create a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased
from memory In the commotion, it is more than likely that the masked
assailants could have lost their masks because it fell off.
Besides, the acquittals made by the trial court of some of the accused
further prove that the decision was made only after a thorough examination
of the evidence presented. The lower court correctly ruled that
inconsistencies and even probabilities are not unusual because there is no
person with perfect faculties or senses.
Furthermore while the general rule is that a witness can testify only on the
facts he personally knows, statements made by him while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with
respect to circumstances thereof, may be admitted in evidence as part of
the res gestae, or the circumstances, facts and declarations that grow out
of the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.
(People vs. Feliciano, Jr. Medalla, Soliva, Zingcapan and Alvir, G.R.
196735, May 5, 2014)