GR 125016; (May, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125016 May 28, 1999
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NOMER VELASCO Y PANGILINAN, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Nomer Velasco, along with two others, was charged with Murder for the stabbing death of Danilo Valencia in Manila on February 20, 1994. The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of lone eyewitness Leonardo Lucaban. He testified that in the early morning, he saw Valencia briefly grab a man before walking away. Two individuals then approached Valencia; the shorter one questioned him about not shooting the earlier person, and after Valencia replied he had no gun, this same individual followed and stabbed Valencia in the back. Lucaban initially gave a sworn statement positively identifying Velasco and his co-accused. However, during trial, he gave inconsistent testimonies, at first stating he could not remember the assailant’s face due to darkness and later claiming he identified only Velasco in a police line-up, contradicting the police investigator’s testimony that Lucaban identified all three accused.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Nomer Velasco beyond reasonable doubt despite the eyewitness’s inconsistent testimonies.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that inconsistencies between a witness’s sworn statement and court testimony do not automatically discredit the witness, especially when the inconsistencies refer to minor details and the core account of the crime remains consistent. Here, Lucaban’s fundamental narrative—that he saw Velasco question and then stab the unarmed victim from behind—was unwavering. The initial hesitation in court was reasonably attributed to fear, as Lucaban admitted being threatened by the accused’s family. The Court found his positive identification of Velasco in a well-lit area, aided by the headlights of a passing jeepney, to be credible and sufficient. Furthermore, the attack on the victim, who was walking away unarmed and unaware, was characterized by treachery (alevosia), qualifying the killing as Murder. The suddenness of the assault from behind ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself, thereby satisfying the legal requirement for treachery.