1. SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED
As to the claim that he did not check the engine, the NLRC
vs. NLRC and FROILAN RAQUIZA
Froilan V. Raquiza was employed by Samar II Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (SAMELCO II) as probationary power plant
operator. Consequently, he was appointed as switchboard
operator and sometimes alternated as acting plant
superintendent.
One day during his shift, a major breakdown of the pielstick
engine happened, causing electric failure to the whole
franchise area for a period of four months. Now, he was
immediately asked to explain the incident, which he did the
following day. After investigation, however, SAMELCO II
General Manager Ponciano Rosales found Raquiza and his
two companions in the shift, guilty of gross negligence in the
performance of their duty. The three were placed under
preventive suspension and was subsequently terminated.
Raquiza filed a complaint against SAMELCO II for illegal
dismissal, praying for reinstatement and payment of unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime pay, attorney's fees, moral and
exemplary damages, and the cost of suit.
Labor Arbiter declared that Raquiza's dismissal was based on
a just cause. On appeal, the NLRC reversed and set aside this
ruling.
Issue: W/N Raquiza’s failure to specifically deny the charges is
tantamount to admission.
Ruling: No. Technical rules of evidence are not, however,
strictly followed in labor cases. The Labor Code itself affirms
this liberality pursuant to Art. 221 of the Labor Code.
Art. 221. Technical Rules not binding and
prior resort to amicable settlement. — In any
proceeding before the Commission or any of
the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence
prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not
be controlling and it is the spirit and intention
of this Code that the Commission and its
members and the Labor Arbiters shall use
every and all reasonable means to ascertain
the facts in each case speedily and
objectively and without regard
technicalities of law or procedure, all in the
interest of due process. . . .
This rule is reiterated in the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.
Raquiza's failure to specifically deny or explain the
charges against him should not, therefore, be deemed
fatal to his claim.
Our laws as well as this Court have consistently recognized
and respected an employer's right to terminate the services of
an employee for just or authorized causes. This prerogative,
however, must be exercised in good faith.
Petitioner as employer is duty-bound to establish the existence
of a clear, valid and just ground for dismissing Raquiza. It
cannot merely allege that its employee was grossly negligent in
the performance of his duty thereby causing great damage to
its property and resulting in great pecuniary loss.
Raquiza's dismissal was based on three factors, namely, (a)
leaving his work assignment while on duty; (b) not properly
checking the engine before starting it; and (c) authorizing the
continued running of pielstick (engine) no. 2 in spite of the
discovery that there was an oil leakage.
1. While it is true that Raquiza left his place of work to go to the
administration building to get the proceeds of his loan during
the testing period of the engine, such act cannot be perceived
to be so serious as would amount to gross negligence.
2.
found that he actually made several inspections of the engine
before actually starting it.
3. Finally, the fact that Raquiza failed to prevent the
occurrence of the incident does not sufficiently show nor can it
be inferred that he was grossly negligent. At most, it can be
considered an error of judgment on his part when he continued
to operate the engine
What is significant is that the employer bears the burden of
proving that the dismissal of an employee is for a just cause,
failing which the dismissal cannot be deemed justified thus
entitling the latter to reinstatement.
2. MARIO HORNALES vs. NLRC, JOSE CAYANAN AND
JEAC INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONTRACTOR
SERVICES
Mario Hornales alleged that Jeac sent him, together with other
Filipinos, to Singapore. At their departure, they were advised
that someone would meet them in Singapore. True enough,
they were welcomed by the owner of Step-Up Agency. He
informed them that they would be working as fishermen with a
monthly salary of US $200.00 each.
On board the vessel, petitioner was subjected to inhumane
work conditions, like inadequate supply of food and water,
maltreatment by the ship captain, and lack of medical
attendance. He was also required to work for twenty-two hours
a day without pay. Unable to bear his situation any longer, he
joined the other Filipino workers in leaving the vessel while it
was docked at Mauritius Islands. Thereafter, they boarded a
vessel owned by Min Fu Fishery of Taiwan.
Upon his return to the Philippines, petitioner asked private
respondents to pay his salaries. Instead of doing so, they
required him to surrender his passport promising that they
would procure another job for him. Later, private respondents
gave him the amount of P500.00. Unsatisfied, Hornales filed
with the POEA a complaint for non-payment of wages and
recovery of damages against JEAC and its owner.
On their answer, private respondents Hornales and Min Fee
to
Fishery are all "total strangers" to them. To bolster the claim,
they offered in evidence the Joint Affidavit of (Efren B.
Balucas and Alexander C. Natura) petitioner's co-workers in
Singapore, stating that while they were in Singapore, petitioner
admitted to them that he did not apply in any agency in the
Philippines; that he came to Singapore merely as a tourist; and
that, he applied directly and personally with Step-Up Agency.
These statements were corroborated by the
"Certification" issued by Step-Up Agency.
POEA rendered a decision in favor of Hornales. NLRC vacated
the decision of the POEA and dismissed petitioner's complaint
mainly on the ground that there was no employer-employee
relationship between the parties.
Issue: W/N the JA of Balucas and Natura are hearsay
evidence.
Evidences presented:
Petitioner: photocopies of the PNB
checks and agreementswhich were intended to disprove
private respondents' claim that petitioner, Victor Lim and Step-
Up Agency are "total strangers."
1. The PNB checks represent the payments made by
respondent Cayanan to the relatives of petitioner's co-
workers (including Balucas and Natura). The checks
show the name of LIM Chang Koo &/or Jose
Cayanan, as drawers.
 2. While the agreements, denominated "For Fisherman
Deployed For Work To Singapore,"constitute
authorization to Victor Lim to deduct from the monthly
salaries of the workers the amounts of their
obligations to private respondents.
Private Respondents: Joint Affidavit secured by private
respondents from petitioner's co-workers, Balucas and Natura,
and a Certification issued by Step-Up Agency. These
evidence were intended to prove the alleged admission of
petitioner to Balucas and Natura that he went as a tourist to
Singapore and that he applied directly with Step-Up Agency.
The Certification of Step-Up Agency re-echoes the allegations
in the Joint Affidavit.
Ruling: Yes. Where the adverse party is deprived of the
opportunity to cross-examine the affiants, affidavits are
generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiant
themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify
thereon. Private respondents' Joint Affidavit has no probative
value. It suffers from two infirmities, first, petitioner was not
given the opportunity to cross-examine the two affiants
regarding the contents thereof, and second, the two affiants
merely swore as to what petitioner told them but not as to the
truth of the statements uttered.
the Certification must not be given weight. Private
respondents not only failed to present Victor Lim before the
POEA to be cross-examined by petitioner, but
the Certification was also not verified or under oath. To our
mind, it is just a last-ditch attempt on the part of Step-Up
Agency to help private respondents free themselves from
liability to petitioner. It bears noting that private respondents,
Victor Lim and Step-Up Agency, as shown by petitioner's
evidence, acted in concert in his deployment to Singapore.
Hence, such certification is, at most, self-serving.
Private respondents' argument that petitioner's evidence are
mere, photocopies and therefore cannot be considered as the
best evidence on the issue does not persuade us. The best
evidence rule enshrined in the Revised Rules on Evidence
provides that "when the subject of an inquiry is the contents of
a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself." This rule is not without exception.
Some of the exception are:
1. when the original has been lost or destroyed;
2. cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the
part of the offeror; or
3. when the original is in the custody or under the control
of the party against whom the evidence is offered and
the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice.
It would be unreasonable to demand from petitioner the
presentation of the original PNB Checks considering that it is a
banking practice that for a check to be encashed, the same
must be surrendered to the bank first. These checks are,
therefore, most likely in the possession of the bank.
As to the agreements, it is reasonable to conclude that
respondent Cayanan was the one in possession of the
originals thereof. It maybe recalled that
these agreements were executed by the workers for his
security and benefit. At any rate, it is worthy to note that private
respondents did not disown thePNB checks nor deny the
existence of the agreements.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it must be emphasized that the
proceedings before the POEA is non-litigious in nature. The
technicalities of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in
the courts of law shall not strictly apply thereto and a hearing
officer may avail himself of all reasonable means to ascertain
the facts of the case.
As held in Shoemart v. NLRC, it is not the Rules of Court
enacted by the Supreme Court but rather the regulations
promulgated by the National Labor Relations Commission
which govern "the hearing and disposition of cases before it
and its regional branches. The 'Revised Rules of Court of the
Philippines and prevailing jurisprudence,' the law says, may be
applied to labor cases only under quite stringent limits, i.e., 'in
the absence of any applicable provision (in the Rules of the
Commission), and in order to effectuate the objectives of the
Labor Code.
Undoutedly, the factual and legal bases of respondent NLRC's
conclusions are bereft of substantial evidence - the quantum of
proof in labor cases. As aptly said by the Solicitor General, its
decision is "baseless and erroneous." Its disposition is
manifestly a grave abuse of discretion.
Jeac as a mere travel agency. First, there is nothing in the
record which shows that respondent JEAC is a mere travel
agency. Even private respondents consistently plead that
respondent JEAC is a "licensed recruitment agency authorized
to recruit and deploy overseas Filipino contract workers."
Second, the evidence upon which respondent NLRC based its
findings consist of agreements authorizing Victor Lim to
deduct from the salaries of petitioner and his co-workers the
amount of their obligations to respondent Cayanan.
Significantly, from these pieces of evidence respondent NLRC
could already see the falsity in private respondents' "total
strangers" theory. How could there be an arrangement
between two persons who do not know each other? Note how
respondent NLRC conveniently closed its eye to the name of
Victor Lim, as mentioned in theagreements, when it ruled that
Victor Lim and Step-Up Agency are indeed " total strangers" to
private respondents. We sustain the findings of the POEA,
being more convincing and supported by substantial evidence,
thus:
“The checks representing the salaries of the complainant and
his co-workers show that they are drawn from the account of
Lim Chang Khoo and/or Jose Gayanan. From the foregoing, it
is properly noted that complainant's salaries were taken from
the funds of respondents which means that the latter had a
hand or participated in his recruitment and deployment.
We cannot give credence to respondents' contentions that
complainant is a total stranger to them and that MIN Fee
Fishery Co. Ltd. is not its principal, neither do we believe that
respondents do not know Mr. Victor Lim who met complainant
in Singapore. Annex "B" in respondents' position paper belies
respondents' contentions. How could respondents write to a
certain Step Up Employment Agency in Singapore,
complainant's employer, when the latter is not even mentioned
in his complaint? We wonder where respondents got the name
of this employer if the same is really not known to them.
It is very unlikely for complainant to proceed to Singapore as a
tourist without knowing anybody at the site and just to apply for
work. Had there not been previous arrangements with
respondents, it is not all possible for complainant to land on a
job in Singapore because he is only a tourist.
Respondents had to resort to this misrepresentation of allowing
its recruits to leave as tourist because it is a service contractor
and it is not authorized to deploy fishermen."
No employment contract; No SPA and AR. They cannot
expect us to utilize their non-compliance with the POEA Rules
and Regulations as a basis in absolving them. At most, private
respondents' act of deploying petitioner to Singapore without
complying with the POEA requirements only made them
susceptible to cancellation or suspension of license as
provided by Section 2, Rule I, Book VI of POEA Rules and
Regulations that must be threshed out in a proper
administrative proceeding for suspension or cancellation of
license.
3. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD., vs.NLRC and
MARTHA Z. SINGSON
Cathay Pacific Airways is an international airline company
while Martha Z. Singson was a cabin attendant of CATHAY.
It was contended that Singson was scheduled on a 5-day flight
to London but was unable to take the flight as she was feeling
fatigued and exhausted from her transfer to a new apartment
with her husband. Meanwhile, she visited the company doctor,
Dr. Fahy, who examined and diagnosed her to be suffering
from a moderately severe asthma attack. She was advised to
take a Ventolin nebulizer and increase the medication she was
currently taking, an oral Prednisone. Dr. Fahy thereafter
conveyed to Dr. Fowler, Principal Medical Officer, her findings
regarding Singson's medical condition as a result of which she
was evaluated as unfit for flying due to her medical condition.
Consequently, Singson again visited Dr. Fahy during which
time the latter declared her condition to have vastly improved.
However, later that day, Cabin Crew Manager Robert J.
Nipperess informed Singson that CATHAY had decided to
retire her on medical grounds effective immediately based on
the recommendation of Dr. Fowler and Dr. Fahy. Martha Z.
Singson was surprised with the suddenness of the notification
but nonetheless acknowledged it.
Now, Singson filed before the Labor Arbiter a complaint
against CATHAY for illegal dismissal, with prayer for actual,
moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. On the
basis of the evidence presented before him, Labor Arbiter
declared CATHAY liable for illegal dismissal. NLRC reversed
the decision of the Labor Arbiter and declared valid Singson's
dismissal from service. It however ordered CATHAY to retain
her services as ground stewardess.
Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the NLRC and
reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter declaring Singson
to have been illegally terminated.
Issue: W/N Dr. Fahy’s affidavit may be admitted even if he
was not presented as witness.
Ruling: Yes. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law
or equity are not always controlling. 10 It is not necessary that
affidavits and other documents presented conform to the
technical rules of evidence as the Court maintains a liberal
stance regarding procedural deficiencies in labor
cases.11 Section 3, Rule V, of the New Rules of Procedure of
the NLRC specifically allows parties to submit position papers
accompanied by all supporting documents including affidavits
of their respective witnesses which take the place of their
testimonies.12 Thus, the fact that Dr. Fahy was not presented
as witness to identify and testify on the contents of her affidavit
was not a fatal procedural flaw that affected the admissibility of
her affidavit as evidence.
The non-presentation of Dr. Fahy during the trial was duly
explained – she was no longer connected with CATHAY and
had transferred residence to Ireland. It is for this same reason
that we find no error in the NLRC'' admission of Dr. Fahy's
written medical notes as newly-discovered evidence.
Moreover, the submission of additional evidence before the
NLRC is not prohibited by the New Rules of Procedure of the
NLRC, such submissions not being prejudicial to the party for
the latter could submit counter-evidence.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, we find Singson to have been
illegally dismissed from the service. Granting without admitting
that indeed respondent was suffering from asthma, this alone
would not be a valid ground for CATHAY to dismiss her
summarily. Section 8, Rule I, Book VI, of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code requires a certification by a
competent public health authority that the disease is of such
nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period
of six (6) months even with proper medical treatment.
Hence, being no certification by a competent public health
authority was presented by CATHAY, the latter cannot validly
dismiss Singson.
4. People v. Larry Lavapie et.al
It was alleged that at Sitio Tastas, Buhi, Camarines Sur, herein
6 accused and several Does armed with bolos, with intent to
kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, conspiring,
confederating together and mutually helping one another, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and hack with said bolos one Sonny Sierva, thereby
inflicting upon the latter a mortal wound which directly caused
his death.
A. For the prosecution, eyewitness Domingo Samonte
testified that on March 29, 1989 at around 11 p.m. while on
their way home, he and Sonny noticed a group of persons
coming towards them. When Sonny focused the flashlight,
which he was holding, on Santos San Pascual, Sr. and Larry
Lavapie, who was then holding a bolo. San Pascual, Sr.
suddenly held the hands of Sonny behind his back, while
Lavapie hacked Sonny. Domingo testified that Sonny was hit
on his left neck. When Sonny fell on the ground, Domingo ran
towards some pili trees. Then, Domingo saw 2 persons, a boy
and a girl, who were following them and holding a torch which
they used to lighten the fallen body of Sonny.
B. Jenny Cordial, a 15-year-old ward of Sonny Sierva's aunt
testified that on their way home from a dance, they came upon
the body of Sonny Sierva lying on the middle of the road. They
recognized Sonny Sierva because Cordial was then holding a
torch. At that instance, Cordial saw accused-appellant Larry
Lavapie, who was holding a bolo, standing at a distance of
about five (5) to six (6) meters from the body of Sonny
Sierva. Aside from accused-appellant Larry Lavapie, Cordial
also saw other persons at the scene of the crime but she was
not able to recognize them. Thereafter, Cordial and Enrico
Sierva ran away and went home to inform the father of Sonny
Sierva of what happened. Cordial described thebolo held by
accused-appellant Larry Lavapie as "shiny and sharp," and
"clear and clean.
C. Enrico Sierva, 15-year-old cousin of the victim corroborated
the statement of Jenny that they saw a Sonny lying prostrate
on the road with a hack wound on the neck.
D. Dr. Alicia M. Mercurio, Municipal Health Officer of Buhi II,
Camarines Sur, conducted the autopsy on the body of Sonny
Sierva and prepared an autopsy report with findings that the
caused of death of the victim was due to the incised wound at
the right side of the neck.
E. According to Dr. Mercurio, the hack wound could have been
caused by a sharp instrument like a very sharp bolo. Dr.
Mercurio further opined that the victim could have died at
around 1 or 2 a.m on March 30, 1989.
F. Rogelio Sierva, father of the victim, testified that on March
29, 1989, at around 11 p.m., he came from a dance in
Buraburan, San Vicente, together with his son and his brother-
in-law. On their way home, they passed by the house of a
certain Teresita Gaite, where Sonny Sierva was left behind
with his friends. Rogelio and Felix proceeded on their way
home. When they were already near his house, Rogelio saw
six (6) of the seven (7) identified accused. Rogelio continued to
testify that he was hacked on his right ear by accused Arnold
Buates. Rogelio and Felix then ran towards Rogelio's house.
When Rogelio was about to open the door of his house, he
was hacked on the right arm by accused Santos San Pascual,
Jr. Rogelio then entered the house and got a bolo but his
assailants already retreated to the place where he was first
hacked. Thereafter, Rogelio sought the assistance of his
brother, Silvestre Sierva, whose house was located about 20
meters away, and requested that he be brought to a hospital.
On their way to the hospital, they saw Sonny Sierva, who was
almost beheaded, lying on the road. When Rogelio discovered
that Sonny was already dead, they proceeded to the San
Vicente Assistance Center and reported the hacking incident.
Afterwards, they proceeded to the Mediatrix Hospital where
Rogelio was treated for his wounds.
For the defense, on the other hand, all of the six (6) accused,
who were brought before the jurisdiction of the trial court,
testified together with Felix Lavapie, Juan Bongais and Loreto
Camasis.
A. Larry Lavapie, in his defense, interposed denial and alibi.
Lavapie testified that on March 29, 1989, at around 8 p.m., he
was at a dance in San Vicente, Buhi, with accused San
Pascual, Jr., a certain Santiago Sanorjo and Danny Belardo
and left the dance hall at past 11:30 p.m. and went to the barn
of Santiago Sanorjo, arriving thereat at around 1 a.m. They
slept in the said barn and went to their respective houses on
the following day. Santos San Pascual, Jr. corroborated the
testimony of Lavapie.
B. Juan Bongais testified that in the evening of March 29,
1989, he was at a dance in San Vicente, Buraburan. He
arrived at the dance at 7 p.m. and left at about 12:30 a.m. of
the following day. He left the dance with Jenny Cordial, Rico
Sierva and Liza San Pascual. On their way home, they met
Rogelio Sierva who was hacked and being carried by Dionesio
Coronel and Felicito Conas. They continued walking for
several meters until they came upon the dead body of Sonny
Sierva, lying on the road. On cross-examination, Bongais
testified that when they were about to leave the dance at
around 12:30 a.m. of March 30, 1989, accused-appellant Larry
Lavapie and his co-accused Santos San Pascual, Jr. were still
at the dancing hall.
C. Accused-appellant Santos San Pascual, Sr., likewise,
claimed denial and alibi. San Pascual, Sr. testified that in the
evening of March 29, 1989, he was resting in his house and
awoke at 5 o'clock of the following day. San Pascual, Sr.
further claimed that Rogelio Sierva, father of the victim, was
actuated by ill-motive to implicate him in this crime, i.e., he filed
a complaint against Rogelio for the attempted rape of his
daughter, Gina San Pascual. On cross-examination, San
Pascual, Sr. testified that sitio Labawon is adjacent
to barangay San Vicente.
D. The three (3) other accused, Rey San Pascual, Simeon
Lachano and Benigno Catina, Jr., likewise, interposed denial
and alibi in their respective testimonies before the trial court.
RTC rendered a Decision finding accused-appellants Larry
Lavapie and Santos San Pascual, Sr. guilty of murder qualified
by treachery. The 4 other accused were acquitted for
insufficiency of evidence.
In convicting accused-appellants, Larry Lavapie and Santos
San Pascual, Sr., the trial court relied primarily on the
testimony of prosecution witness Domingo Samonte that
accused-appellant Larry Lavapie was the one who hacked
Sonny Sierva on the neck with the use of a bolo while
accused-appellant Santos San Pascual, Sr. was at the back of
Sonny Sierva, holding the latter's hands. The trial court also
relied heavily on the testimony of prosecution witness Jenny
Cordial that she saw accused-appellant Larry Lavapie,
standing about five (5) meters away from the dead body of
Sonny Sierva; and on the testimony of prosecution witness
Enrico Sierva that he saw accused-appellants, Larry Lavapie
and Santos San Pascual, Sr., standing five (5) meters away
from the dead body of Sonny Sierva. The trial court further
maintained that Jenny Cordial's description of Sonny Sierva's
body when they came upon it, lying prostrate on the road, was
supported by the medical findings stated in the autopsy report
of Dr. Alicia M. Mercurio. The trial court rejected the defenses
of denial and alibi raised by accused-appellants, and ruled that
denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, and
that accused-appellants' alibi was not corroborated by any
credible and disinterested witness. In ruling that the killing was
qualified by treachery, the trial court explained that accused-
appellants awaited, in ambush, for their victim;" and that the
suddenness of the attack on Sonny Sierva and the fact that his
hands were being held at his back by accused-appellant
Santos San Pascual, Sr. while he was hacked by accused-
appellant Larry Lavapie, rendered him "helpless to put up any
defense." The trial court also found that conspiracy attended
the commission of the crime, based on the fact that ". . .they
[accused-appellants] are related to each other (uncle and
nephew) and from their concerted acts in killing Sonny Sierva."
Accused-appellants filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging that
prosecution witnesses, Jenny Cordial and Domingo Samonte
retracted their respective testimonies but was denied. Hence
this appeal.
Issue: W/N the testimony of Domingo Samonte is sufficient to
rely on to convict Sonny.
Ruling: No. After a careful review of the records of this case,
particularly, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the
Court finds that significant facts and circumstances were
overlooked and disregarded by the trial court, which, if properly
considered, would have affected the result of this case.
In the case at bar, while Samonte categorically testified that
Sonny Sierva was hacked on the neck, at the same time,
Samonte demonstrated by pointing to the left side of his neck;
the autopsy report clearly revealed that Sonny Sierva was
hacked on the right side of his neck and not on the left side.
This material inconsistency, consequently, casts a serious
doubt on the testimony of Samonte.
As we have ruled in People vs. Vasquez, since the physical
evidence on record runs counter to the testimonial evidence of
the prosecution witnesses, conclusions as to physical evidence
should prevail. It bears reiteration that physical evidence is an
eloquent manifestations of truth which rate high in our
hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In the light of the physical
evidence obtaining in this case, contrary to oral assertions
cannot normally prevail. Greater credence is given to physical
evidence as evidence of the highest order because it speaks
more eloquently than a hundred witnesses
Moreover, Samonte's claim that on March 29, 1989, at around
11 p.m., he came from the dance hall in San Vicente with
Rogelio Sierva and the victim Sonny Sierva, and that while on
their way, Rogelio and Sonny talked with some ladies, then,
Rogelio went ahead, leaving Domingo and Sonny behind, was
even contradicted by Rogelio's testimony on 2 different
instances, that on March 29, 1989, at about 11 p.m., he was
with his son, Sonny Sierva and his brother-in-law, Felix
Buendia, without any reference to the alleged presence of
Samonte.
In addition, we find Samonte's response to the occurrence to
be contrary to ordinary human experience and behavior. If
indeed Samonte was present at the scene of the crime when
the victim, Sonny Sierva, whose hands were held at the back
by accused-appellant Santos San Pascual, Sr., was hacked on
the neck by accused-appellant Larry Lavapie, while the other
accused, numbering at least five (5), were apparently merely
observing the incident; it was then unnatural and against
common experience that Samonte ran away towards
some pili trees and simply stayed there until dawn of the
following day, even as he had already seen a boy and a girl
discovered the fallen body of Sonny Sierva shortly after the
incident occurred. Considering the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses, Jenny Cordial and Enrico Sierva, that after
discovering the dead body of Sonny Sierva lying prostrate on
the ground, and seeing the several accused standing near the
dead body of Sonny Sierva, they were able to run away and go
to Rogelio Sierva's house to report what they saw, without the
several accused following them or even attempting to threaten
them in any way, it appears that the several accused posed no
threat to Samonte, which could have forced him to remain near
some pili trees. It is also perplexing why Samonte did not see,
inform or seek the help of Rogelio Sierva, Felix Buendia,
Silvestre Sierva and an unidentified person, who also
happened to come upon the dead body of Sonny Sierva while
on their way to the hospital.
This Court finds occasion, at this point, to apply a long-held
doctrine that to be credible, testimonial evidence should come
not only from the mouth of a credible witness but it should also
be credible, reasonable and in accord with human
experience. While we take judicial notice that eyewitnesses to
a crime are often reluctant to report the incident, the Court
finds the response of Samonte to the occurrence contrary to
human experience, and his testimony not credible, thus, we
reject his testimony.
The testimony of Jenny and Enrico Servia without in the
absence of other corroborative evidence, does not satisfy the
requirements under the Rules of Court nor point with moral
certainty to the guilt of accused-appellants. As we have
consistently held, the mere presence of accused-appellants at
the locus criminis cannot be solely interpreted to mean that
they committed the killing. e also observe that as testified by
prosecution witness Jenny Cordial, the bolo allegedly held by
accused-appellant Larry Lavapie was "shiny and sharp," and
"clear and clean." If indeed it was accused-appellant Larry
Lavapie who hacked Sonny Sierva on the neck, the bolo,
which he allegedly used in hacking Sonny Sierva, would not
have been "clear and clean."

In resume, considering the evidence for the prosecution and

the attendant circumstances, the Court entertains reasonable
doubt as to the culpability of accused-appellants.