G.R. No. 96469 October 21, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA, alias “LABO,” MARIO DE LUNA y LAGUARTILLA, FELIPE NAVACILLA y SALVA, NOEL PALAD and PETER CANIESO, accused, MARIO DE LUNA y LUGUARTILLA and FELIPE NAVACILLA y SALVA, appellants.

FACTS

Mario de Luna and Felipe Navacilla were among five persons charged with Murder for the killing of Romanito Matocinos on January 18, 1988, in Sariaya, Quezon. The information alleged conspiracy, use of bladed weapons and stones, and treachery. Accused Teofilo Villanueva was discharged to become a state witness, while Noel Palad and Peter Canieso remained at large. After pleading not guilty, de Luna and Navacilla were tried and convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, each sentenced to life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) and ordered to pay damages. They appealed.
The prosecution’s main witness, Manuel Atienza, testified that around 11:00 p.m., he saw the victim being ganged up by Villanueva, de Luna, Navacilla, and two others. He saw Villanueva, de Luna, and Navacilla stab the victim successively, and one assailant hit the victim with a stone, under a bright mercury lamp. The state witness, Teofilo Villanueva, gave a different account, stating he saw Peter Canieso stab the victim first, followed by Noel Palad and then Mario de Luna, and that he later met the fleeing assailants and saw Navacilla already asleep elsewhere. The appellants claimed they were merely passers-by who witnessed a fight but were warned by an armed man not to interfere.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in: (a) crediting the testimony of prosecution witness Manuel Atienza despite alleged inconsistencies with his prior statements; (b) accepting the testimony of state witness Teofilo Villanueva; and (c) convicting the appellants based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision with modifications. The Court held that: (1) The alleged inconsistencies between Manuel Atienza’s affidavit/preliminary investigation statements and his court testimony were not fatal. Affidavits are often incomplete and inaccurate, and testimony in open court deserves more weight. Atienza’s detailed court testimony, identifying the appellants as participants in the stabbing and assault with stones, was credible and consistent with the evidence of conspiracy. (2) The testimony of Teofilo Villanueva, while differing in details, did not absolve the appellants; his account still implicated appellant de Luna. Minor variances among witnesses’ testimonies do not undermine credibility. (3) The trial court’s factual findings, including its assessment of witness credibility and the existence of conspiracy and treachery, are generally binding on appeal. The evidence sufficiently established the appellants’ guilt as principals for Murder qualified by treachery. The Court modified the penalty by deleting the phrase “life imprisonment” (reclusion perpetua is the proper term) and INCREASED the award of compensatory damages for unrealized earnings from P50,000.00 to P200,000.00, based on the victim’s age, income, and life expectancy.