EN
BANC
G.R. No. 182555 --- LENIDO LUMANOG and AUGUSTO
G.R. No. 185123 --- CESAR FORTUNA, Petitioner, versus PEOPLE OF
THE
G.R. No. 187745 --- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, versus SPO2 CESAR
FORTUNA y ABUDO, RAMESES DE JESUS y CALMA, LENIDO LUMANOG y LUISTRO, JOEL DE JESUS y VALDEZ and AUGUSTO SANTOS y GALANG, Accused; RAMESES DE JESUS y CALMA and JOEL DE JESUS y
VALDEZ, Appellants.
Promulgated:
February 8, 2011
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DISSENTING
OPINION
ABAD, J.:
Upon reading the ponencia
of Mr. Justice Martin S. Villarama Jr, serious doubts continue to linger on the
credibility of the prosecution’s sole witness, Freddie Alejo. Still, I find myself unable to sustain the
conviction of all the accused.
The
Court should not have swallowed Alejo’s testimony hook, line and sinker considering
that the ponencia acknowledged that Alejo received some economic benefit
from the Abadilla Family. While it can
not be disputed that Alejo was present in the scene of the incident on June 13,
1996, however, the receipt of any form of economic benefit transformed him to a
partial and bias witness since he has something to gain or lose depending upon
his testimony. A witness is said to be
biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an
incentive to exaggerate or give false color to his statements, or to suppress
or to pervert the truth, or to state what is false.[1] The unbiased mind is also susceptible and can
succumb to the pressures brought about by life’s realities. There is reason, therefore, to doubt the
testimony of Alejo from the very beginning.
Contrary
to the ponencia’s findings, Alejo’s acceptance of these benefits severely
tainted his credibility and neither the finding that he did not waiver in his
identification of the accused despite rigorous cross-examinations nor the reliance
given by the trial court and CA on his testimony will overshadow the fact that
he is a biased witness for the prosecution.
It is
also unfair how the ponencia credited the inexplicable clarity of the
identification of the accused by Alejo to his training as a security guard, but
did not consider the very same training when he failed to notice and take
action on the two men walking to and fro the establishment from more than an
hour, among others. Selective
consideration of Alejo’s training as a security guard to the sequence of events
that transpired that day can only invite suspicions as to his credibility.
Evidence,
to be believed, must proceed not only from the mouth of a
credible witness but must be credible in
itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common
experience of mankind.[2] Here, not only is Alejo a biased witness, but
also his testimony, in itself, shows earmarks of falsehood as shown in the
earlier dissenting opinions.[3]
Since
the prosecution failed to show any credible evidence to implicate all the
accused to the murder of Colonel Abadilla, the constitutional presumption of
innocence will entitle them to an acquittal regardless of the weakness or
strength of their defense.
WHEREFORE, I vote to GRANT the motion for reconsideration
and acquit all the accused.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
[1] People v. Vergara, G.R. No. 186119, October 29, 2009.
[2] Zapatos v. People of the
[3] See Dissenting Opinions of Mr. Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Mr. Justice Roberto A. Abad in G.R. Nos. 182555, 185123 and 187745, Lumanog v. People, September 7, 2010.