Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Cebu City

SPECIAL FORMER TWENTIETH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 03729

Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus- Members:

LAGURA-YAP, J., Chairperson,

RIVAS-PALMONES, &
*BATHAN, JJ.
BENJAMIN AMORADO and
BEBIANO NEPOMUCENO,
Accused-Appellants.
Promulgated: September 8, 2022

RESOLUTION

LAGURA-YAP, J.:

This resolves accused-appellants' Motion for

1
Reconsideration of the Court's Decision promulgated on
February 11, 2022, the dispositive portion of which reads: 2

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision

dated January 29, 2020 of Branch 60 of the Regional Trial
Court of Barili, Cebu in Crim. Case No. CEB-BRL-1524 is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on the damages awarded.
Accused-appellants Benjamin Amorado and Bebiano
Nepomuceno are ordered to pay the heirs of [the] victim civil
indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages in the
amount of Php75,000.00 each. Actual damages in the sum of
Php50,000.00 is sustained. The damages herein awarded are
subject to interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the
date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.”

*Vice J. Quiroz per raffle dated July 14, 2022.

1Rollo, pp. 100-112.
2Rollo, p. 97.
CA-G.R. CR CEB-CR HC No. 03729 2 of 4
Resolution

In their motion, accused-appellants argue that the

testimony of Gilbert as the supposed eyewitness is laden with
improbabilities and contradicted by other evidence on record.
For instance, when Gilbert returned to their house after the
incident, he did not inform his older brother, Joevert, that
their father had just been murdered. Likewise, Gilbert's
testimony that he informed Pedro Simeon of the whereabouts
of his father's body, was inconsistent with Pedro Simeon's own
testimony that he was the first person to discover the lifeless
body of the victim. Moreover, if Gilbert really informed Pedro
Simeon of the death of his father and that he knew the
identities of the perpetrators, then the police report issued ten
days after the incident would not have indicated that the
“suspect is still unidentified as of this moment and the motive
of the killing is also undetermined.”

Additionally, accused-appellants question why Cayetano,

another older brother of Gilbert, failed to inform the
investigating police officers of the identities of the assailants
even though he was supposedly informed thereof by Gilbert
when he arrived in Badian.

Lastly, accused-appellants maintain that their defense of

alibi was corroborated by Michael, the minor child of accused-
appellant Bebiano Nepomuceno. If the courts gave credence to
the testimony of Gilbert as a child witness, then they should
likewise give weight to the testimony given by Michael.
According to Michael, both accused-appellants were in their
house watching television when the victim was killed.

Thus, accused-appellants pray that the assailed Decision

be reconsidered and a new one issued acquitting them of the
crime of murder.

We are not persuaded. The arguments raised in this

motion have already been resolved in the assailed Decision.
On this note, We reiterate that Gilbert's testimony cannot be
doubted simply because some details were not consistent with
the police report. The same holds true with the minor
inconsistencies relative to the testimonies of other witnesses
presented by the prosecution:3

3Rollo, pp. 95-96.

CA-G.R. CR CEB-CR HC No. 03729 3 of 4
Resolution

“Whatever inconsistencies between Gilbert's

testimony and the statements in the Police Report are
not consequential. It must be borne in mind that police
reports should not be given undue significance or
probative value for they are usually incomplete and
inaccurate, sometimes from either partial suggestions
or for want of suggestions or inquiries. Entries in a
police blotter are merely prima facie evidence of the
facts stated therein but they are not conclusive.

As regards the purported inconsistencies of

Gilbert's testimony, We find that such inconsistencies
only refer to minor and insignificant details, and do not
negate the fact that Gilbert positively identified
accused-appellants as the persons who assaulted and
killed his father. As long as the testimonies of the
witnesses corroborate one another on material points,
minor inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their
credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details do not
undermine the integrity of a prosecution witness.”

We likewise find no merit in accused-appellants' defense

of alibi. The said defense crumbles in the face of the positive
and categorical testimony of Gilbert that he saw accused-
appellants assault and murder his father:4

“In the instant case, the defense of denial of the

accused cannot be given more weight and credence over
that of the child's positive identification. We brush aside
accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi as they
failed to present any evidence that it was physically
impossible for them to be at the crime scene when the
victim was killed. It is established jurisprudence that
denial cannot prevail over the witnesses' positive
identification of the accused-appellant; more so where
the defense did not present convincing evidence that it
was physically impossible for accused-appellant to have
been present at the crime scene at the time of the
commission of the crime. A defense of denial which is
unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving,
deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater
evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and
probable testimony on affirmative matters.”

4Rollo, p. 96.
CA-G.R. CR CEB-CR HC No. 03729 4 of 4
Resolution

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED

for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARILYN B. LAGURA-YAP
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

NANCY C. RIVAS-PALMONES ELEUTERIO L. BATHAN
Associate Justice Associate Justice