A.M. No. 326-CJ - Villa vs. Llamas

Incident and Discovery
On August 23, 1981, at around 10:00 AM, a passenger jeep was traveling from the Philippine Constabulary (PC) headquarters at Concepcion Grande, Naga City to the patrol base at Antipolo, Minalabac, Camarines Sur.
The jeep, carrying approximately ten passengers, stopped near the house of the barangay captain in Grejalvo (Grijalvo), San Fernando, Camarines Sur for passenger unloading.

The Attack and Eyewitness Testimony
While the jeep was stopped, petitioner Bernardo M. Cordial, accompanied by nine other persons, was seen by Nicanor Lanuza—a member of the Constabulary Home Defense Force (CHDF).
Cordial, armed with an “improvised knife,” entered the jeep and stabbed Constabulary officer Emmanuel Romero, who was seated on the left side near the running board.
Nicanor Lanuza responded by firing his armalite rifle. Simultaneously, Cordial’s companions seized the armalite rifles belonging to both Romero and Lanuza and participated in the assault by stabbing Romero multiple times.
The combined action resulted in Romero sustaining several wounds, including a swinging bullet wound, a contused wound near the left nipple, a lacerated wound on the left mid-scapular region, and a stab wound on the right hypochondriac area. Romero also had abrasions on both legs and eventually died on the spot due to “irreversible shock secondary to severe external and internal hemorrhage.”

Autopsy and Medical Findings
The autopsy, performed by the municipal health officer of San Fernando, Camarines Sur, documented multiple bullet and stab wounds.
The cause of death was determined to be the result of severe external and internal hemorrhage following multiple gunshot wounds.

Arrest and Investigation
On April 26, 1982, approximately eight months after the incident, Bernardo Cordial was arrested near the Tabuco bridge in Naga City while waiting for a ride.
Cordial was subsequently brought to the PC headquarters by Lanuza and underwent investigation conducted in the Bicol dialect.
Although his typewritten statement was not signed by Cordial, during the interview he indicated that the responses to the questions were provided by Lanuza and not by him.

Criminal Charges and Trial Proceedings
A complaint for murder was filed against Cordial and three unidentified John Does by the police, followed by a preliminary investigation and the filing of an information for murder in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur.
Cordial entered a plea of not guilty and interposed an alibi defense, asserting difficulty in recalling his whereabouts on August 23, 1981 due to the passage of time.
Additional witnesses, notably a co-laborer and the barangay captain (Catalina Noora), testified regarding Cordial’s employment history, travel, and associations.
The defense aimed to discredit the sole eyewitness, Nicanor Lanuza, particularly by attacking his credibility on grounds of alleged moral turpitude, relying in part on Noora’s uncorroborated testimony.

Conviction, Sentence, and Appellate Proceedings
The Regional Trial Court, Branch XXV at Naga City, found Cordial guilty of homicide—not murder—as the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not sufficiently proven.
An indeterminate sentence was imposed: a minimum of eight years and one day of prision mayor and a maximum of fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal.
The court also ordered an indemnity payable to the victim’s heirs initially amounting to P12,000 (for death and interment expenses), which was later increased to P30,000 by the appellate court.
Following the denial of Cordial’s motion for reconsideration, the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Issues Raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari
At the heart of the petition is Cordial’s challenge to the credibility of Nicanor Lanuza, the prosecution’s sole eyewitness.
The petition emphasized alleged inconsistencies in Lanuza’s testimony, such as:

A purported “more or less five minutes” lapse between noticing Cordial’s group and the actual attack on Romero.
The claim that Lanuza had known Cordial for twenty years—a point contested by noting Cordial’s relatively young age at the time of the crime.

Cordial further contended that these alleged discrepancies suggested that Lanuza had ample time to prepare himself or warn the victim, contradicting the characterization of the attack as sudden.

Credibility of the Eyewitness
Is Nicanor Lanuza’s testimony, despite minor discrepancies, sufficiently credible to underpin a conviction for homicide?
Can alleged moral turpitude and questions raised by the defense regarding Lanuza’s character materially affect the reliability of his testimony?

Validity of Attacks on Character
Whether the defense’s method of impeaching Lanuza—by citing testimonies about his alleged participation in extra-judicial activities and moral failings—is legally proper.
Whether the attack on Lanuza’s character, based on hearsay and uncorroborated information, should lead to the dismissal of his testimony.

Sufficiency of the Evidence
Whether the testimony of a single eyewitness, if found credible, is adequate to sustain a conviction for homicide.
Whether Cordial’s alibi was successfully proven, taking into account the physical possibility of his presence at the scene.

Classification of the Crime
Whether the absence of qualifying circumstances—such as treachery or premeditation—justifies classifying the killing as homicide rather than murder.
Whether the minor discrepancies in the eyewitness account significantly impact the classification of the crime.