PEOPLE vs. ACUÑA

ACUÑA, JESUS RAMOS and ANTONIO (TONY) DIONISIO, defendants.

Topic:  Qualification of adult witnesses.

FACTS: 

Defendants were charged with murder.  The complaint stated that they conspired together and assaulted the victim, Tranquilino Mariano, and while two of the accused were holding him, one was hitting him by a 2x2 piece of wood.  Then they stabbed him to death.  There were a number of witnesses who saw the beating and another who saw the accused dragging a dead body.

The RTC convicted the accused and hence this appeal.  The main issue in this appeal is the credibility of the witnesses.  Accused claim that they should have noticed the witnesses if they claim to have been there when the crime was happening, the fact that accused “did not notice the witnesses’ presence” makes their testimony incredible. The witnesses were also first cousins of the victims and they failed to report the incident immediately.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the witnesses’ testimony is incredible.

HELD:

NO.  First, where the issue is the credibility of the witness, the Supreme Court, as a general rule will not disturb the findings of the lower courts as regards to their findings of the witnesses’ credibility. 

As to the fact that accused “did not notice” the presence of the witnesses, it was correctly pointed out by the prosecution that the accused were probably too engrossed with their assault to have noticed the witnesses.  Besides, the area where the incident occurred was partly concealed by gumamela plants hence it was possible for the witnesses to see the incident without being seen.

It is also true that the witnesses were first cousins but “there is nothing in our laws that disqualifies relatives of a victim from testifying in a criminal case … so long as said relatives who were actually present at the scene of the crime, witnessed its execution.”  Furthermore, there was no showing of ill-motive.

The fact that they failed to report the incident immediately is also understandable. The accused were locally known troublemakers who would intimidate people once they fell under the influence of liquor.  The court also takes judicial notice that the witnesses were town mates and must have feared reprisals.  Such reticence has been declared as not affecting credibility.

The witness who saw the accused dragging the cadaver, likewise reported the incident 6 months after the incident.  The court held that this does not affect the credibility of the as it relates to a matter that occurred after the crime was committed and merely corroborates the testimony of two other credible witnesses (the cousins) who actually witnessed the incident.

DECISION: Guilty.