This is the case of Mario who was accused of murder in connection with the killing of a man. Said killing happened one evening at around 9 p.m. on a lighted street of a nearby suburban municipality. It was witnessed by Mila who happened to pass by on her way back home after buying some medicine for her son in a nearby drug store.
Mila saw Mario and Jimmy who were both living in the neighborhood, and two other unidentified men beating up the man. She saw Jimmy stab the victim. Then she heard a gunshot and saw Mario with gun in hand pointed at the victim. She got scared and took a different route home. Upon reaching home she told her sister-in-law Marta, what she saw. Later on Mila’s brother-in-law, Fred, told them that her other brother-in-law, Lito, had been killed. It was then that Mila realized that the person she saw being beaten up and killed was her own brother-in-law Lito. Lito sustained 29 stab wounds, one incised wound and two gunshot wounds in the neck trunk and upper extremity. He died of cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of those wounds.
While the investigation was being conducted by the local police, two other brothers of Lito, including Mila’s own husband were killed, with the local policemen themselves as suspects. Due to the inaction of the local police, the family of the victims sought the assistance of the PC-CIS in the killing of the three brothers. The investigation of Lito’s killing was delayed as Mila concentrated on the prosecution of the policemen suspects in the killing of Lito’s two other brothers including her own husband.
When actual investigation of Lito’s killing started, the CIS investigators tried several times to find Mario and Jimmy. Only Jimmy was arrested initially as Mario went into hiding. Five years after the killing of Lito, and two years after his co-accused Jimmy was acquitted, Mario was finally found and tried in court.
At the trial, only Mila testified as the lone eyewitness. She pointed to the area where the crime was committed and narrated what she saw and heard in a straightforward and spontaneous manner. She identified Mario in open court as the man pointing a gun at the prostrate figure of the victim. She never wavered in her account of what she saw.
Instead of presenting evidence, Mario filed a demurrer to evidence without leave of court. He contended that he should also be acquitted as his co-accused was acquitted based only on the sole testimony of Mila. But the lower court denied his demurrer to evidence and convicted him of homicide sentencing him to 8 years and 1 day minimum to 14 years 8 months 1 day maximum imprisonment.
Was the lower court correct?
Yes.
While Mila was the only witness to the crime her testimony is sufficient to convict Mario. The testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction. A testimony is credible if it bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and had been given in a spontaneous, natural and straightforward manner. In the absence of any indicium that Mila harbored ill will towards Mario, her testimony must be presumed to be true.
On the other hand, Mario went into hiding and was found only five years after the killing of Lito and two years after his co-accused Jimmy was acquitted.The CIS investigator tried several times to find him but failed to do so. Flight is evidence of a guilty conscience. For as the good book says, the wicked fleeth even when no man pursueth, whereas the righteous are as a brave as a lion (Sevalle vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 122858, February 28, 2001).