Right To Be Informed
Right To Be Informed
Right To Be Informed
SO ORDERED.
QUISUMBING, J.:
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
In an amended information also dated December 30,
1994, and similarly worded except for the victims
name, appellants Joey and Mario Manlansing were
likewise charged with the murder of Magin Soriano. [4]
Inasmuch as the two cases were interrelated, having
arisen from the same incident, the two cases were
consolidated.
On arraignment, Joey Manlansing pleaded not guilty to
both charges, while Mario Manlansing pleaded guilty to
two counts of murder. After they waived pre-trial, both
cases were heard on the merits.
Two principal issues are for resolution: (1) Did the trial
court err in convicting both appellants Mario
Manlansing and Joey Manlansing for alleged conspiracy
to kill the Sorianos? (2) Did the trial court err in
imposing the death penalty upon appellants?
On the first issue, appellants contend that since there
were no other witnesses, nothing can be clearer than
the confession of appellant Mario Manlansing that he
alone killed the couple and that his brother Joey had
nothing to do with the incident. They submit that a
confession if freely and voluntarily given is deserving of
the highest credit. Inasmuch as Marios confession was
freely and voluntarily given and was reiterated by him
during trial, the lower court erred in not giving credit to
said confession.
Appellants also aver that the trial court likewise erred
in finding Joey guilty of conspiring with Mario
notwithstanding Marios categorical confession that
Joey had no participation in the killings.Appellants
contend that the mere fact that they are siblings does
not mean that Marios testimony was not
credible. According to appellants, an accused in a
criminal case may competently testify for or against
any of his co-accused.
For the appellee, the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) avers that the guilt of appellant Joey Manlansing
as a conspirator has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt. First, he admitted boxing Jorja in the face.
However, he explained that he only did this out of fear
that Mario might hear her shout and attack her. But, as
stressed by the OSG, the medico-legal evidence
contradicts Joeys statement that he boxed Jorja only
once. The autopsy report showed that Jorja sustained
hematoma on her face and chest, an indication that
she was struck several times. Second, the city medical
officer, Dr. Concepcion, testified that from the nature
and types of wounds found on the bodies of the
victims, one person alone could not have inflicted the
fatal injuries. The police recovered two different types
of weapons, namely, a bolo and a knife. Third, a
comparison of the fingerprints taken from the crime
scene and Joeys standard fingerprints showed that two
of his fingerprints were recovered from the crime
scene. Fourth, Mario admitted during the re-enactment
of the incident that he and Joey ransacked the place
looking for cash and jewelry. Fifth, rebuttal witness
Mario Bartolome testified that he saw appellants step
out of the Sorianos house on the night of the killings
wearing bloodstained shirts. Finally, Joeys flight from
Cabanatuan City belies his innocence regarding the
killing of the Sorianos. Flight is an indication of guilt, for
a truly innocent person would normally stand his
ground, and grasp the first opportunity to defend
himself and clear his name.
While giving credence to the confession of Mario
Manlansing that he killed the couple, the trial court
A: None, Maam.
Fiscal Amis:
I
The court a quo grave erred in finding accusedappellant Rollie Alvarado guilty of murder beyond
reasonable doubt despite insufficiency of evidence and
also in disregarding the theory of the defense.
II
The court a quo gravely erred in giving weight and
credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
which are biased and unreliable.
This is another occasion to stress anew that the trial
court, more than the reviewing tribunal, is in a better
position to gauge credibility of witnesses and to
properly appreciate the relative weight of the often
conflicting evidence for both parties,[10] having had the
direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and
determine if they were telling the truth or not.[11] And
since appellate courts do not deal with live witnesses
but only with the cold pages of a written record,[12] this
Court gives the highest respect to the trial courts
assessment of the credibility of eyewitness.[13] We have
gone over the records and found that the trial court
correctly upheld the prosecutions case.
Rosalie positively identified appellant in open court as
the one among the five (5) men who stabbed her
father Zosimo. She thus testified:
FISCAL ANG:
Q And can you tell us how was your father challenged?
A They were shouting at him, sir.
Q And after your father came out of your house, what
happened next?
A He was pulled out by the man and they stabbed him
Q Now, you said that he was pulled by the man, how
was he pulled and who pulled at your father?
A I could recognize only one of them, sir.
Q Now, how many were holding at your father?
A Four (4), sir.
Q How about the fifth one?
A He was the one who stabbed my father, sir.
Q Now, this person who stabbed to (sic) your father, do
you know him?
A Yes, sir
Q Now, is he in Court?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
INTERPRETER:
A Bolo, sir.[14]
A No more, sir.
A Yes sir.[15]
Well settled is the rule that greater weight is given to
the positive identification of the accused by the
prosecution witnesses than the accuseds denial and
explanation concerning the commission of the crime.
[16]
This is so inasmuch as mere denials are self-serving
evidence that cannot obtain evidentiary weight greater
than the declaration of credible witnesses who testified
on affirmative matters.[17]
Appellant would, however, attempt to undermine the
prosecutions case by claiming that:
1) Rosalie and Leonora are unreliable and biased
witnesses as they are the daughter and sister
respectively, of victim Zosimo,
2) Rosalie failed to identify appellant at the Angono
hospital and in fact mentioned another name Sonny
Alvarado as testified to by defense witness PO3
Fetalvero, and