G.R. No. 114266 . December 4, 1996. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO VILLANUEVA and MAMERTO DURANA, accused. MAMERTO DURANA, accused-appellant.
FACTS

Accused Mamerto Durana and Rogelio Villanueva were charged with the murder of Diosdado Meniano. While Villanueva remained at large, Durana was tried and convicted by the trial court, which sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay indemnity. The prosecution evidence established that on the night of November 12, 1992, Durana repeatedly challenged Meniano from outside his house to come down and fight. Meniano eventually descended, armed with a bolo. Gloria Meniano, the victim’s wife, witnessed from inside the house and saw Villanueva hiding nearby. As Meniano exited, Villanueva immediately hacked him. Durana, who was present, taunted the wounded victim. A neighbor, Elenita Meniano, corroborated the account, also seeing Durana brandishing a bolo afterward.
Durana interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at a store some distance away. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erred because he was not included as a respondent in the preliminary investigation and that the testimony of Gloria Meniano was unreliable due to alleged inconsistencies.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the lack of a preliminary investigation for Durana invalidated the proceedings, and (2) whether the alleged inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony discredited the prosecution’s case and the finding of conspiracy.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information, affect the court’s jurisdiction, or constitute a ground for quashing it. The right to a preliminary investigation is not a fundamental right and is merely statutory. If flawed or absent, the remedy is for the accused to move for an investigation before arraignment. Since Durana failed to invoke this right at the proper time, he was deemed to have waived it and could not raise it on appeal.
On the second issue, the Court found no merit in the challenge to Gloria Meniano’s credibility. The alleged inconsistencies pertained to minor details, such as the precise sequence of the accused’s movements after the hacking and an initial statement to police about a request for a cigarette. The Court emphasized that discrepancies on trivial matters do not impair the witness’s essential credibility and may even enhance it by indicating a lack of rehearsal. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded the highest respect. The positive identification by two eyewitnesses prevailed over the alibi.
The Court upheld the finding of conspiracy, inferred from the concerted acts of Durana and Villanueva. Durana’s act of luring the victim out, while Villanueva lay in wait to launch a sudden and unexpected attack, demonstrated a joint purpose and community of design. This treacherous attack gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself. Conspiracy having been established, Durana was equally liable for the murder. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was appropriate, as there were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto.