Title
People vs. Relucio
Case
G.R. No. L-38790
Decision Date
Nov 9, 1978
Rosendo Velasco appealed his murder conviction for Gonzalo Talastas' 1971 killing. Witness testimonies were inconsistent and unreliable. The Supreme Court acquitted Velasco, citing insufficient evidence and trial court errors.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30707)

Background of the Case

On January 4, 1974, the Circuit Criminal Court found Federico Relucio and Rosendo Velasco guilty of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering joint indemnification of the victim's heirs in the amount of P12,000. The case was initiated when the City Fiscal filed an information dated May 29, 1972, stating that on June 23, 1971, both accused, alongside others, conspired to kill Gonzalo Talastas. The trial lasted from November 16, 1972, to November 5, 1973, comprising multiple sessions and a substantial amount of witness testimony.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution presented multiple witnesses, notably Patrolman Jose E. Garcia and Crispin Angeles, to establish Velasco and Relucio's participation in the murder. Angeles testified that on the day of the incident, he saw Talastas leave the Capital Theater with blood on his shoulder and identified Velasco as one of the men involved in the chase and shooting. The prosecution posited that both Velasco and Padrones were in the jeep that chased Talastas, with Padrones eventually allegedly shooting Talastas.

Witness Testimony and Credibility Issues

The testimony of Crispin Angeles was central but fraught with inconsistencies and contradictions when compared to prior statements he made. For instance, discrepancies emerged regarding the sequence of events and who exactly was involved in the shooting. Angeles' initial statement contradicted his in-court testimony regarding his presence and what he observed during the events leading to Talastas' death.

Similarly, Miguel Padrones, one of the co-accused, initially presented as a witness for the prosecution, was accused of receiving leniency in exchange for his testimony. He claimed that he was forced to testify against Velasco and Relucio in order to avoid prosecution, raising queries on the motives and the integrity of his testimony.

Examination of Inconsistency

Legal principles around witness credibility and impeachment were crucial in this case. The trial revealed that both Angeles and Padrones displayed unreliable memories, and their testimonies corroborated by various documents, including police sworn statements, showed significant contradictions that undermined their reliability. Specifically, it was noted that Padrones' account, given earlier under less favorable circumstances, painted a different picture than what he later testified in court.

Court's Findings and Reasoning

The appellate court found the evidence of the prosecution, particularly the testimonies of Angeles and Padrones, to be inconsistent and unreliable. The discr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.