G.R. No. 78180 ; June 19, 1991
ISIDRO MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DIVISION, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Isidro Mendoza was convicted of homicide for the death of Sofio Libranda. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Norma Nasayao, testified that on October 13, 1983, she heard a woman shout “Huwag mong saksakin” and, upon investigation, saw Mendoza stab Libranda in the chest from a distance of one meter. The victim’s sister, Gregoria, and brother, Nolasco, corroborated this, with Gregoria stating that the dying Libranda identified Mendoza as his assailant. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found this evidence credible and convicted Mendoza.
Mendoza, however, presented a different version. He claimed his wife, Eleanor, was the one who fatally stabbed Libranda while defending her honor from his advances. He presented photographs of bloodstains and a toppled chair in his house, indicating a struggle. He also presented CHDF member Armando dela Cruz, who testified he saw Eleanor and Libranda grappling for a bladed weapon but admitted he did not witness the actual stabbing. Eleanor initially surrendered and gave a statement confessing to the stabbing but later refused to sign it.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Mendoza’s conviction based on the credibility of the prosecution’s eyewitness and in not acquitting him on reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction, with a modification increasing the civil indemnity. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, emphasizing the rule that assessments of witness credibility by the trial court are accorded the highest respect, as it had the direct opportunity to observe their demeanor. The Court found Norma Nasayao’s eyewitness account to be credible, forthright, and corroborated by the dying declaration of the victim to his siblings.
The defense’s alternative theory was rejected. The Court reasoned that the bloodstains and disarray in Mendoza’s house were consistent with the prosecution’s narrative that Mendoza initially attacked Libranda inside the house after catching him with Eleanor, then pursued and stabbed him outside where Nasayao witnessed it. The scene described by defense witness Dela Cruz—Eleanor holding the weapon with Libranda leaning on her—was interpreted as occurring after Mendoza’s fatal attack, not as proof Eleanor was the perpetrator. The alleged love letters, while not material for identification, properly established Mendoza’s motive of passion and obfuscation, which mitigated his liability. The conviction for homicide was thus in accordance with law.