G.R. No. 182555 , 185123 & 187745, February 8, 2011
LENIDO LUMANOG and AUGUSTO SANTOS, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. / CESAR FORTUNA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. / PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SPO2 CESAR FORTUNA y ABUDO, RAMESES DE JESUS y CALMA, LENIDO LUMANOG y LUISTRO, JOEL DE JESUS y VALDEZ and AUGUSTO SANTOS y GALANG, Accused, RAMESES DE JESUS y CALMA and JOEL DE JESUS y VALDEZ, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

This is a consolidated resolution on motions for reconsideration assailing the Supreme Court’s Decision dated September 7, 2010, which affirmed with modifications the conviction of the accused for the murder of Col. Rolando N. Abadilla. The petitioners, Lenido Lumanog, Augusto Santos, Cesar Fortuna, and Rameses de Jesus, sought reconsideration primarily challenging the credibility and sufficiency of the lone eyewitness testimony of security guard Freddie Alejo. Specific grounds included: alleged inconsistencies between Alejo’s sworn statement (mentioning four suspects) and his court testimony (identifying six); his acceptance of benefits from the Abadilla family; the reliability of his in-court identification; and the conditions of an ocular inspection. Fortuna also submitted a belated affidavit from a police officer to question investigation procedures. The Court emphasized that a motion for reconsideration does not obligate it to re-discuss issues already thoroughly determined in the original decision.

ISSUE

Whether the motions for reconsideration, which primarily assail the credibility and identification made by the lone eyewitness Freddie Alejo and raise other procedural and evidentiary matters, merit the reversal of the accused’s conviction for murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the motions for reconsideration WITH FINALITY. The Court held the motions bereft of merit.
1. On the Eyewitness Testimony: The Court found no fatal omission in Alejo’s initial sworn statement mentioning only four gunmen, as he was responding specifically to a question about who shot the victim. His subsequent court testimony detailing six participants, including two lookouts, was deemed a complete recounting. Contradictions between an affidavit and court testimony do not automatically impair credibility, as affidavits are often incomplete.
2. On the Identification: Alejo’s manner of testifying, initially referring to accused by numbers to indicate their positions, and his ability to recognize their faces and features from his elevated guard post were found clear and reliable. The alleged mismatch between prior descriptions and actual appearances was dismissed.
3. On Benefits from the Victim’s Family: The fact that Alejo accepted financial support from the Abadilla family did not, by itself, discredit his testimony.
4. On the Ocular Inspection: The challenge to the ocular inspection’s reliability due to a different time of day was not sustained.
5. On New Evidence: The belated affidavit submitted by Fortuna was not considered a proper ground for reconsideration, as a motion for reconsideration is not the remedy for newly discovered evidence; a petition for new trial is the correct recourse.
6. On Other Grounds: The Court declined to re-discuss other issues already passed upon in the main decision, including the inadmissibility of certain extrajudicial confessions, the delay in the appeals process, inconclusive ballistic and fingerprint evidence, and the effect of a co-accused’s acquittal.
The dispositive portion of the affirmed Decision modified the damages awarded: civil indemnity was increased to ₱75,000.00, while moral and exemplary damages were reduced to ₱75,000.00 and ₱30,000.00, respectively.