case number 126

8/17/2019 Case Number 126

1/4

Case number 126

Lenido Lumanog v. People of the Philippines (and other consolidated cases),G.. !o. 1"2###, $eptember %, 2&1&

D E C I S I O N(En Banc)

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

I. THE FACTS

'ppellants ere the accused perpetrators of the ambushsla* of former Chief of the +etropolitan Commandntelligence and $ecurit* Group of the Philippine Constabular* (no the Philippine !ational Police), Coloneolando !. 'badilla.

-he principal itness for the prosecution as reddie 'le/o, a securit* guard emplo*ed assigned at 2110atipunan 'venue, lue idge, ue3on Cit*, here the ambushsla* happened. 's a purported e*eitness, hetestified on hat he sa during the fateful da*, including the faces of the accused.

'll the accused raised the defense of alibi , highlighted the negative findings of ballistic and fingerprinte4aminations, and further alleged torture in the hands of police officers and denial of constitutional rights duringcustodial investigation.

-he trial court hoever convicted the accusedappellants. -he C' affirmed ith modification the decision ofthe trial court. -he C' upheld the conviction of the accusedappellants based on the credible e*eitness testimon*of 'le/o, ho vividl* recounted before the trial court their respective positions and participation in the fatal shootingof 'badilla, having been able to itness closel* ho the* committed the crime.

II. THE ISSUES

1. 5id the C' decision compl* ith the constitutional standard that 7n8o decision shall be rendered b* an*

court ithout e4pressing therein clearl* and distinctl* the facts and the la on hich it is based9:2. ;as the e4tra/udicial confession of accused


2/4

essentiall* assail is the verbatim cop*ing b* the C' of not onl* the facts narrated, but also the arguments anddiscussion including the legal authorities, in disposing of the appeal. Bn such holesale adoption of the Bffice othe $olicitor General@s position, as ell as the trial court@s insufficient findings of fact, appellants anchor their claim offailure of intermediate revie b* the C'.

$. %&, the etra'(udicial con"ession o" accused Joel de Jesus ta)en durin! the custodialin*esti!ation was %&+ *alid.

Police officers claimed that upon arresting


3/4

of appellants as the si4 (6) persons hom he sa acting together in the fatal shooting of 'badilla on ,1EE6. -he clear vie that 'le/o had at the time of the incident as verified b*


4/4

no person can be in to places at the same time. -he e4cuse must be so airtight that it ould admit of noe4ception. ;here there is the least possibilit* of accused@s presence at the crime scene, the alibi ill not hold ater

5eepl* embedded in our /urisprudence is the rule that positive identification of the accused, herecategorical and consistent, ithout an* shoing of ill motive on the part of the e*eitness testif*ing, should prevaiover the alibi and denial of appellants, hose testimonies are not substantiated b* clear and convincing evidence.oever, none of the appellants presented clear and convincing e4cuses shoing the ph*sical impossibilit* of theirbeing at the crime scene beteen "I&& o@cloc= and EI&& o@cloc= in the morning of , 1EE6. ence, the triacourt and C' did not err in re/ecting their common defense of alibi.

Case number

case number 126

Documents