G.R. No. 115217 November 21, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANNY PAREDES and SANTOS PAREDES JR. alias “TITING,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

On April 12, 1989, Amelito Banug and Evangelio Asis Jr. were walking home when they saw the Paredes brothers, Danny and Santos Jr., approaching. Danny carried a long firearm, and Santos Jr. held a knife. Sensing danger, the two ran, but a burst of gunfire ensued. Amelito looked back and saw Danny shooting Evangelio. After Evangelio fell, Santos Jr. proceeded to stab him. Evangelio died from four gunshot and two stab wounds. The brothers were charged with murder. Both raised alibi, with Danny presenting a medical certificate claiming confinement from April 8 to 20, 1989, at a provincial hospital, attended by his brother Santos Jr.
The trial court acquitted Danny Paredes, crediting his alibi due to the medical certificate and corroborating testimony. However, it convicted Santos Paredes Jr. of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The court found the positive identification by eyewitness Amelito credible and rejected Santos Jr.’s alibi, noting he had the physical capability and motive. Santos Jr. appealed, arguing that if his brother was acquitted based on the same witness’s testimony, he should be too, and alternatively, that he was entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, being fifteen years old at the time of the crime.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the acquittal of Danny Paredes based on alibi discredits the entire testimony of eyewitness Amelito Banug against Santos Paredes Jr.; and (2) whether Santos Paredes Jr. is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. On the first issue, the Court held that the acquittal of one co-accused does not automatically discredit the witness’s testimony against the other. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule. The trial court has the discretion to accept portions of a witness’s testimony as credible while rejecting others. The trial judge, who observed the witness’s demeanor, was in the best position to assess credibility. The Court found no reason to overturn the trial court’s acceptance of Amelito’s identification of Santos Jr. as the perpetrator.
Regarding the second issue, the Court found that Santos Paredes Jr. was indeed fifteen years old at the time of the offense, a fact established by his testimony. The trial court erred in considering his age at the time of trial instead of at the time of the crime’s commission. Under Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over fifteen but under eighteen is entitled to a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed by law. For murder, punishable by reclusion temporal maximum to death, the penalty next lower is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of four years, ten months, and twenty days of prision correccional maximum as minimum, to twelve years, four months, and ten days of reclusion temporal minimum as maximum.