GR 138472; (August, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 138472-73; August 9, 2001
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PO3 Noel Padilla, accused-appellant.
FACTS
PO3 Noel Padilla appealed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bataan, Branch 2, convicting him of murder for the death of Apolinario Belmonte and frustrated murder against Jesus Casaul, Jr. The incidents occurred on November 19, 1991, at the Mango Grove restaurant in Morong, Bataan. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the eyewitness account of Jesus Casaul, Jr., who testified that he and his cousin, Apolinario Belmonte, were drinking beer and watching a video when Padilla arrived with companions, including Nonong Navarette. After a heated argument between Navarette and the victims, Padilla suddenly shot Belmonte twice at the back of the head, killing him. Padilla then shot Casaul twice, hitting him on the cheek and behind the ear, but Casaul survived. The defense presented Padilla’s testimony, which the trial court found uncorroborated and evasive. Padilla claimed he was at the scene but denied the shooting, suggesting he had no motive and did not know the victims.
ISSUE
The issues raised on appeal were: (1) whether the testimony of Jesus Casaul, Jr. is trustworthy and reliable, and (2) whether the non-presentation of witnesses listed in the informations should be construed against the prosecution.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the conviction for frustrated murder to attempted murder. The Court held that the testimony of Jesus Casaul, Jr. was credible and consistent, and minor inconsistencies did not undermine his reliability. The non-presentation of other witnesses did not weaken the prosecution’s case, as the testimony of a single credible witness is sufficient for conviction. For the killing of Apolinario Belmonte, treachery was present, qualifying the crime as murder. For the shooting of Jesus Casaul, Jr., the Court found that the wounds were not fatal, as medical evidence indicated they would not have caused death, thus the crime was only attempted murder, not frustrated murder. The penalty for murder was reclusion perpetua with civil indemnity, and for attempted murder, an indeterminate penalty was imposed.