G.R. No. 115555 -59 January 22, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pfc. Wilfredo Villanueva and Pat. Herminigildo Cruz, accused, Pat. Herminigildo Cruz, accused-appellant.

FACTS

At around midnight on May 30, 1989, Reynaldo Sacil, Arnold Araojo, Laudemer Mejia, Romulo Diaros, and Tomas Mason were walking along Quirino Highway in Tambo, Parañaque when they were mowed down by a burst of gunfire from the window of a car. The victims died from gunshot wounds. Police recovered empty shells from a .30 carbine and a 5.56 armalite rifle at the scene. More than a year later, Julieto Sultero gave a statement identifying accused-appellant Herminigildo Cruz and his co-accused Wilfredo Villanueva, both policemen, as among the perpetrators. Sultero testified that he witnessed the incident from about 50 meters away while sitting on a bench in front of a billiard hall. He saw a slow-moving Toyota Corolla arrive, from which a hail of bullets was fired. After the shooting stopped, three men alighted, and he saw accused-appellant Cruz approach Sacil and shoot him in the head at close range despite pleas for mercy. Sultero identified Cruz as one of those who alighted from the car and as the one who shot Sacil. He knew Cruz well from prior meetings. Cruz and Villanueva were charged with five counts of murder. Both pleaded not guilty. Villanueva escaped after arraignment. Cruz also escaped from confinement but was later recaptured. Cruz did not present evidence in his defense. The trial court found both guilty of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua for each count.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the testimony of the lone prosecution eyewitness, Julieto Sultero, is credible and sufficient to support the conviction of accused-appellant Herminigildo Cruz for murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the trial court. The testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction if it is clear, straightforward, and worthy of credence. The Court found Sultero’s testimony to be credible. He witnessed the crime from a well-illuminated area, knew accused-appellant well, and provided a clear account. His delay in coming forward was justified by fear of reprisal, given that the suspects were policemen. The Court rejected the defense’s attacks on Sultero’s credibility, including the claim about the bench’s location and his reasons for being out that night, finding them inconsequential. The flight of both accused-appellant and his co-accused was considered an implied admission of guilt. The prosecution evidence established accused-appellant’s participation in a concerted effort to kill the victims, and his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.