G.R. No. 53838 . March 15, 1984.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CARLITO MAGBANUA Y PRECINILLO, BEN SANTAMINA Y SANGULLA and ERNESTO PINGGO Y GUIALA, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Carlito Magbanua, Ben Santamina, and Ernesto Pinggo, all fishermen, were charged with murder for the killing of PC member Basiri Asimuddin on December 11, 1976, in Zamboanga City. The prosecution evidence established that in the evening at a store in Recodo, the three accused, who had been drinking, conspired to attack Asimuddin. Magbanua suddenly embraced the victim from behind while Pinggo held his hands, disarmed him of his .45 caliber pistol, and handed it to Santamina. While Magbanua and Pinggo restrained Asimuddin, Santamina shot him three times, causing fatal wounds. The accused then fled. Parafin tests later showed gunpowder residue on Santamina and Magbanua.
The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming they were merely buying lemon when an unidentified man suddenly shot the victim. They asserted they did not flee or assist, and denied any participation. Ben Santamina later withdrew his appeal, leaving only the appeals of Magbanua and Pinggo for resolution.

ISSUE

The core issue is the credibility of the prosecution witnesses versus the defense’s denial, and whether the trial court erred in convicting Magbanua and Pinggo based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s reliance on the positive identification by eyewitnesses Rahma Appang and Macrim Lukman was correct. The Court dismissed the defense’s attack on the witnesses’ credibility due to minor inconsistencies between their court testimony and their earlier sworn statements. It ruled that such prior statements, often taken ex parte, are inherently unreliable compared to solemn testimony in open court, where the witness is subject to cross-examination. The contradictions were satisfactorily explained and did not impair the witnesses’ overall credibility.
The Court also rejected the argument that conviction was based solely on the parafin test. The finding of guilt was grounded on the coherent and positive testimonies of eyewitnesses who vividly described the appellants’ concerted actions leading to the shooting. The defense narrative was deemed contrived and uncorroborated, bearing the earmarks of a fabricated story. The collective actions of Magbanua in embracing the victim and Pinggo in disarming him established their indispensable cooperation, making them co-conspirators equally liable for the murder. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, with the civil indemnity increased to P30,000.00.