G.R. No. 80007 - Lazatin vs. Commission on Elections

The case stems from a Regional Trial Court decision dated December 16, 1996, in Iriga City, Branch 36, where accused-appellants Larry Lavapie and Santos San Pascual, Sr. were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery.
The victims’ heirs were awarded actual, death, and moral damages, and the convicted were sentenced to reclusion perpetua, while other accused (Simeon Lachano, Rey San Pascual, Benigno Catina, Jr., and Santos San Pascual, Jr.) were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
The case was brought into appeal on the ground that newly discovered evidence (namely, the retraction of testimonies by prosecution witnesses Jenny Cordial and Domingo Samonte) should warrant a new trial.

On March 29, 1989, at Sitio Tastas, Barangay San Vicente in the Municipality of Buhi, Camarines Sur, the accused were alleged to have attacked the victim, Sonny Sierva, with bolos.
They were charged with executing a felonious crime characterized by treachery, premeditation, and conspiracy, intended to kill Sonny Sierva, thereby inflicting a mortal hack wound that directly caused his death.
The information detailed that the accused conspired, confederated, and mutually assisted each other in the heinous act and that significant damages were incurred by the victim’s heirs due to the crime.

Prosecution witnesses included Domingo Samonte, Jenny Cordial, Enrico Sierva, and others.

Domingo Samonte testified that he witnessed Larry Lavapie hack the victim on the neck while Santos San Pascual, Sr. restrained the victim by holding his hands.
Jenny Cordial, a 15-year-old, testified that she saw Larry Lavapie holding a bolo, standing approximately five to six meters away from the victim’s body, and described the bolo as “shiny and sharp” as well as “clear and clean.”
Enrico Sierva testified that he, along with Cordial, discovered the victim’s body and identified the accused at a similar distance.

The autopsy report by Dr. Alicia M. Mercurio documented an incised wound on the victim’s neck, specifying that the cut was on the right side, which conflicted with parts of Samonte’s identification.
Other witnesses, including Rogelio Sierva (the victim’s father) and additional companions, provided accounts of their presence at or near the scene, though their testimonies varied regarding the specific actions and identifications of the accused.

Accused-appellants Larry Lavapie and Santos San Pascual, Sr., in their testimonies, interposed both denial and alibi.

Lavapie claimed to have been at a dance in San Vicente, Buhi, around 8 p.m. on the day of the incident, later spending the night in a barn with co-accused Santos San Pascual, Jr., Santiago Sanorjo, and Danny Belardo.
Santos San Pascual, Sr. asserted that he was at home in Sitio Tastas, Labawon, Buhi, resting for the night and further contended that allegations by Rogelio Sierva were motivated by revenge over a personal grievance.

Additional defense witnesses corroborated parts of the alibi, describing their own attendance at the dance and subsequent departure, thereby conflicting with the prosecution’s timeline.

The trial court convicted Lavapie and San Pascual, Sr., basing its decision primarily on the credibility given to eyewitness identifications, particularly those of Samonte, Cordial, and Enrico Sierva.
The court held that the combination of direct identification, the physical presence of the accused at the crime scene, and the supportive medical findings substantiated the charges.
The trial court also rejected the defendants’ alibi claims, noting that denial and alibi did not prevail over the positive, though contested, identification by the prosecution’s witnesses.

On February 3, 1997, the convicted accused-appellants filed a Motion for New Trial, asserting that key prosecution witnesses had retracted their testimonies.
The trial court denied the motion on March 12, 1997, maintaining the basis of its conviction.
The appeal centered on whether such retractions—and other inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts—warranted a fresh trial due to the impact on the reliability of the prosecution evidence.

Whether the testimony of prosecution witness Domingo Samonte, particularly his identification of the side of the neck wounded on the victim, can be reconciled with the physical evidence from the autopsy report.
The impact of contradictions between Samonte’s identification (pointing to the left side) and the autopsy finding (indicating a right-side incision).

Whether the circumstantial evidence—comprising the presence of the accused at the scene and corroborative eyewitness testimonies—meets the stringent requirements of Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the presence of multiple, but uncorroborated, circumstantial factors is sufficient to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the alibi and denial evidence presented by the accused, supported by testimonies from various defense witnesses, raises sufficient doubt regarding the prosecution’s version of events.

Whether the retraction of testimony by key prosecution witnesses (Jenny Cordial and Domingo Samonte) constitutes newly discovered evidence that should compel the granting of a new trial.
How such retractions affect the overall credibility and consistency of the eyewitness identifications.

To what extent physical evidence, such as the autopsy findings, should override or diminish the weight given to conflicting oral testimonies.
The degree to which the “mute but eloquent” physical evidence should contribute to establishing the factual basis for conviction.