G.R. No. 104939 February 2, 1994
Emiliano Lagunsad, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Emiliano Lagunsad and Julius Cordero were charged with Frustrated Murder for stabbing Fidel Wasawas, Jr. on December 8, 1985, in Burauen, Leyte. Cordero jumped bail, leaving Lagunsad alone for trial. The prosecution evidence established that Wasawas and Edilberto Baqueros attended a town fiesta. On their return, Baqueros asked Wasawas to give Cordero (Baqueros’s brother-in-law) and Lagunsad a ride on his motorcycle. Wasawas, who was tipsy, drove recklessly despite pleas from his passengers. The motorcycle eventually crashed. After the crash, Lagunsad and Cordero, angry at Wasawas’s reckless driving, stabbed him multiple times, inflicting wounds that would have caused death without timely medical intervention. Wasawas was found and brought to a hospital. Lagunsad’s defense was that only Cordero stabbed Wasawas. The Regional Trial Court convicted Lagunsad of the lesser offense of Frustrated Homicide, finding no treachery or evident premeditation but appreciating the aggravating circumstance of superior strength. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution evidence, primarily based on the testimony of the victim Fidel Wasawas, Jr., is sufficient to convict petitioner Emiliano Lagunsad of Frustrated Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the prosecution evidence is sufficient to convict. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in accepting the credible portions of Wasawas’s testimony while rejecting his claim that he was first stabbed while still driving the motorcycle, as this was contrary to human behavior. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a mandatory rule and is rarely applied; a witness’s willful falsification on one point does not render the entire testimony incredible. The Court found no proof that Wasawas deliberately falsified his account or was impelled by improper motive. Moreover, Wasawas’s testimony that Lagunsad stabbed him was corroborated by eyewitness Edilberto Baqueros, who saw the stabbing incident. The relationship of Baqueros to accused Cordero does not automatically disqualify him as a biased witness; it merely affects the weight of his testimony. The flight of Cordero indicated his guilt, but even if Cordero also inflicted wounds, this does not absolve Lagunsad of liability. The primordial fact established was that Lagunsad was positively identified as having stabbed the victim. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.