GR 145336; (July, 2006) (Digest)

G.R. No. 145336 ; July 21, 2006
REYNANTE TADEJA, RICKY TADEJA, RICARDO TADEJA and FERDINAND TADEJA, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo, and Ferdinand Tadeja were charged with Homicide for the killing of Ruben Bernardo during a barangay fiesta in Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. The prosecution presented two eyewitnesses, relatives of the victim, who testified that they saw the Tadejas, armed with bolos and sanggots, hack Bernardo to death. They explained that Reynante Tadeja’s own injuries, which formed the basis of a separate frustrated homicide charge he filed against Bernardo’s sons, were accidentally inflicted by his co-accused, Plaridel Tadeja, during the attack.
The Tadejas presented a conflicting version. Reynante claimed he was attacked by Ruben Bernardo and his sons. Plaridel alleged he was chased by Bernardo. The other three petitioners interposed alibi, claiming they were at home watching a movie and sleeping, only learning of the incident later. After a joint trial of the homicide and frustrated homicide cases, the Regional Trial Court convicted the Tadejas of Homicide, giving credence to the prosecution’s eyewitnesses.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the petitioners for Homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The core issue hinged on the credibility of witnesses. The Court reiterated the well-established doctrine that factual findings of the trial court, particularly on witness credibility, are accorded high respect and are generally binding on appellate courts. The trial judge is in the best position to assess the witnesses’ demeanor and sincerity. The petitioners failed to present compelling grounds to overturn these findings.
The Court examined the petitioners’ claim that certain witness testimonies from the related frustrated homicide case created reasonable doubt. However, it found nothing in those testimonies sufficient to overcome the positive, clear, and straightforward identification made by the prosecution’s eyewitnesses. The alleged inconsistencies in the defense’s own narrative—between Reynante’s and Plaridel’s accounts of who was attacked—further weakened their version. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not require absolute certainty but only moral certainty that convinces an unprejudiced mind. The trial and appellate courts correctly found this standard met, as the prosecution’s logical and consistent version established the petitioners’ guilt for Homicide.