G.R. No. 102704 . March 10, 1993.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CORDENCIO CHATTO alias “DENDEN,” SATURNINO DAGAYANON, AND SIX (6) OTHER JOHN DOES, accused. CORDENCIO CHATTO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Cordencio Chatto, together with Saturnino Dagayanon and six John Does, were charged with Murder for the killing of Arnulfo Hinay on April 30, 1985, in New Corella, Davao. The information alleged that they conspired, armed with knives and a gun, to attack, hogtie, stab, and shoot the victim. Upon arraignment, both pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found them guilty of Murder and sentenced them to Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the heirs. Only Chatto appealed. The prosecution’s main witness was the victim’s wife, Servillana Hinay. She testified that on the said date, eight armed men entered their house, asked for her husband, and took him to a coffee plantation about 100 meters away. There, Dagayanon tied his hands, and Chatto shot him in the head, after which others stabbed him. During trial, while identifying Chatto, she initially pointed to the sixth person on a bench, who turned out to be Leo Paican (an accused in a different case). After the prosecutor asked her to tap the shoulder of the accused, she then touched Chatto’s shoulder and identified him as the one wearing a green T-shirt. She explained her initial counting error by stating she had difficulty in counting. The defense filed a demurrer to evidence based on alleged improper identification, which was denied. The defense then waived its right to present evidence, and the case was submitted for decision.

ISSUE

Whether the testimony of the eyewitness, Servillana Hinay, is credible and sufficient to establish the identity of accused-appellant Cordencio Chatto as one of the perpetrators of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, with modification increasing the civil indemnity to P50,000.00. The Court held that the witness’s testimony, taken in its entirety, was credible and sufficient for conviction. The initial misidentification was a minor flaw that did not impair her overall credibility, as she accurately identified Chatto by his clothing and subsequently corrected herself. The Court noted that the witness was a simple barrio woman, and such honest lapses are expected. The delay in executing her affidavit (from 1985 to 1990) was reasonably explained by fear of reprisal from the armed assailants, given the peace and order situation. The trial court’s factual findings on witness credibility are generally accorded great weight, and no substantial reason was found to overturn them. The guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.