G.R. No. L-25504 July 31, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO NER Y FELICIANO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Roberto Ner y Feliciano, was convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Manila for the killing of Jose de Leon (nicknamed “Boy”) on May 17, 1964, at about 10:00 p.m., in the latter’s apartment in Manila. The deceased died from multiple gunshot wounds. The prosecution’s case primarily rested on the testimonies of four witnesses: Lt. Estanislao de Leon (the victim’s uncle and a police officer), Leonardo Bolea, Rodolfo Rosales, and Patrolman Artemio Tiong. Lt. de Leon testified that upon reaching the victim after hearing gunshots, he asked who the assailant was, and the victim, in a low voice, answered “Bobby” and “Pirate,” which are appellant’s nicknames. Rosales corroborated this, stating he heard the victim identify his assailant as “Pirate” or “Bobby Pirate.” Bolea and Rosales testified they saw appellant, along with Jose Lopena and Valentino Villanueva, cruising in a red jeep near the scene before the shooting, and that appellant and Villanueva entered the building. After shots were fired, appellant emerged hurriedly, holding a firearm, and drove away. Patrolman Tiong testified that Angelina Viray, the victim’s common-law wife, told him at the scene that “Pirate Bobby Ner” was the assailant, though Viray was not presented as a witness. The defense presented witnesses, including Rolando Raymundo, who claimed two unknown men, not the appellant, committed the crime, and others who attempted to cast doubt on the presence and credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant did not take the witness stand. After his conviction and life sentence, he appealed, arguing errors in the credibility assessment, the admission of hearsay, the inference from his silence, insufficiency of evidence, and denial of his motion for new trial.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the appellant for the crime of murder has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Concepcion writing the majority opinion, AFFIRMED the conviction. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings of fact and credibility. It held that the positive identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses was credible and sufficient. The dying declaration of the victim to his uncle, corroborated by Rosales, was deemed credible as the witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The Court rejected the defense’s argument based on the medical testimony about the victim’s possible survival time, noting the doctor spoke only in terms of possibilities and that the victim lived long enough to be transported to the hospital. The testimony of Patrolman Tiong regarding Angelina Viray’s statement was considered not crucial to the conviction, as the case did not rest solely on it. The Court also ruled that no unfavorable inference could be drawn from the appellant’s failure to testify, as the prosecution’s evidence was already strong. The motion for a new trial was properly denied as the proffered new evidence did not meet the requisites. The penalty of life imprisonment and the indemnity were affirmed.
DISSENTING OPINION:
Justice Castro dissented, voting for acquittal. He found the evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He expressed doubt about the victim’s alleged dying declaration due to the severity of his wounds and the estimated time of survival. He found the testimonies of Rosales and Bolea contradictory and unworthy of credence and considered Patrolman Tiong’s testimony as hearsay. He also noted the prosecution’s failure to prove motive or link any murder weapon to the appellant.