GR 145002; (January, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145002 ; January 24, 2006
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PFC FLORO MALEJANA, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant PFC Floro Malejana, a member of the PNP, was charged with the murder of Janus Roces. The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses who testified that on the evening of July 28, 1990, in Pilar, Sorsogon, appellant approached a group including the victim, asked for Roces, fired a warning shot in the air, and then fired his M-16 Armalite rifle at Roces multiple times at close range, causing his death. The property custodian confirmed appellant was issued an M-16 and ammunition, with 30 rounds unaccounted for upon its return. The rural health physician’s autopsy confirmed death resulted from multiple gunshot wounds to the chest.
The defense presented a sole witness, a ballistics expert, who testified that the nature of the victim’s wounds was inconsistent with those caused by a high-velocity M-16 rifle, positing instead they were more likely inflicted by a .45 caliber pistol. He argued an M-16 shot at close range would have caused catastrophic damage not reflected in the autopsy report, which noted the victim’s heart was undisturbed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly convicted appellant of murder based on the eyewitness testimonies, despite the defense expert’s opinion on the firearm used.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the positive, categorical, and consistent testimonies of the three eyewitnesses, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, prevailed over the defense expert’s speculative opinion. The Court emphasized that the evaluation of witness credibility is best undertaken by the trial court, and its findings are accorded great weight. The expert’s testimony was deemed inconclusive and insufficient to overturn the factual findings, as it merely suggested a possibility rather than disproving the eyewitness accounts. The Court ruled that the prosecution successfully proved all elements of murder, qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and deliberate, rendering the victim defenseless. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, and civil indemnity was awarded to the victim’s heirs.