G.R. No. 105122 December 10, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BIENVENIDO RAFOLS y TEODORO (Deceased) and CESAR MARIANO y RUBIO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Bienvenido Rafols y Teodoro and Cesar Mariano y Rubio were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua). The conviction was based primarily on the eyewitness testimony of Rolando Fernandez. Fernandez testified that at about 1:00 AM on August 5, 1986, at a street corner in Caloocan City, he saw his cousin, Arturo Balete, being held by the arms by Bienvenido Rafols and another person known as Boy Javier. While being held, Cesar Mariano, standing behind Arturo, shot him in the head, killing him. Fernandez reported the incident to the victim’s father. Months later, he identified Rafols and Mariano at the police station. The medico-legal evidence corroborated that the victim was shot in the head from behind. The information for murder was filed on August 29, 1987. During trial, both accused presented alibis, which the trial court rejected. The judgment was promulgated in absentia as both accused failed to appear despite notice. Subsequently, Bienvenido Rafols was stabbed and killed on March 27, 1991, extinguishing his criminal liability. The appeal proceeded only with respect to Cesar Mariano.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the conviction of Cesar Mariano for murder should be reversed based on the challenges to the credibility of the eyewitness testimony, specifically: (1) the unexplained delay in reporting the crime to police authorities; (2) an alleged lie by the witness about being investigated the day after the crime; (3) the witness being too far away (30-35 meters) to accurately perceive details; and (4) the witness making no outcry or attempt to rescue the victim.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction with modification. The Court held that the delay in the execution of the eyewitness’s sworn statement (55 days after the crime) did not affect his credibility, as he had immediately reported the crime to the victim’s father. The challenge to the identification due to distance failed because the street corner was well-lighted, the malefactors were known to the witness, and the event was of such character as to commend itself to the observer’s perception and recollection. The witness’s failure to make an outcry or attempt rescue was reasonable given that he was unarmed against four men, one with a pistol, who had just shot his cousin. The trial court’s accord of full faith and credit to the eyewitness testimony was not misplaced. The Court modified the penalty, correcting the trial court’s error in equating “life imprisonment” with “reclusion perpetua,” and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.