GR 39523; (May, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-39523 and L-39524 May 15, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO ROBLES, RODOLFO ROBLES, CONRADO LUNA and ANTONIO SARMIENTO, accused. CONRADO LUNA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Rodolfo Mendoza was shot and killed inside the Old Gold Restaurant in Tondo, Manila, on November 22, 1966. The case remained unsolved for approximately six years until a reinvestigation commenced in 1972, following the release from prison of the victim’s father. This led to the filing of charges against Conrado Luna, Antonio Sarmiento, and the Robles brothers. The prosecution’s case primarily rested on the testimonies of eyewitnesses Ernesto de Guzman and Renato Manlapit, who claimed they were present during the shooting. They testified that Luna suddenly shot Mendoza, after which Sarmiento emerged and also fired at the victim. They further alleged that Rogelio Robles entered and instructed the assailants to ensure Mendoza was dead. Sarmiento initially gave extrajudicial confessions implicating himself, Luna, and the Robles brothers but later retracted them. Luna interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was a prisoner assigned to the vessel “Bupri” at the time of the incident.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of accused-appellant Conrado Luna for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed Luna’s conviction. The Court found the testimonies of eyewitnesses De Guzman and Manlapit to be credible and sufficient to establish Luna’s guilt. Their detailed account of the event, including Luna’s act of suddenly shooting the victim and later firing additional shots upon Rogelio Robles’s instruction, was consistent and corroborated by the physical evidence of multiple gunshot wounds. The Court rejected Luna’s defense of alibi, noting it was weak and uncorroborated. The testimony of a fellow prisoner, Ricardo Raymundo, who claimed Luna left the “Bupri” that day, was deemed unreliable due to the long lapse of time and the inherent improbability of recalling a specific date after eight years. The Court also emphasized the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the prison guards, which contradicted the claim that Luna could freely leave. The positive Identification by credible eyewitnesses prevails over an unsubstantiated alibi. The withdrawal of Sarmiento’s appeal further bolstered the case against Luna. The decision of the trial court was affirmed.