In People of the Philippines vs. Raelito Librando, Larry Surdillas and Eddie Purisima, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, emphasizing the weight given to eyewitness testimony, especially from a child witness, and clarifying the application of mitigating circumstances such as voluntary surrender and self-defense. The court underscored that factual findings of the trial court are generally upheld on appeal, given the trial court’s advantage in assessing witness credibility. Practically, this means that eyewitness accounts, even from young witnesses, can be critical in determining guilt, and that claims of self-defense must be substantiated with convincing evidence to be considered mitigating.

Torchlight Witness: Can a Child’s Testimony Seal a Murder Case?

The case revolves around the tragic death of Edwin Labandero, who was fatally assaulted by Raelito Librando, Larry Surdillas, and Eddie Purisima. The incident occurred on December 11, 1996, as Labandero, along with his eight-year-old daughter Aileen and a relative, Fernando de los Santos, were returning home from the market. The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the testimony of Aileen, who witnessed the brutal attack on her father. The defense, on the other hand, attempted to discredit Aileen’s testimony, arguing that she had failed to positively identify the accused during a police lineup and that her account may have been influenced.

The central legal question was whether the testimonies, particularly that of a child eyewitness, were sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused-appellants challenged the credibility and reliability of Aileen’s testimony, pointing to alleged inconsistencies and the possibility of coaching. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, placing significant weight on Aileen’s direct account of the crime. The Court also addressed the accused Raelito Librando’s claim of incomplete self-defense and the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender.

In examining the credibility of the witnesses, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the factual findings of the trial court are generally respected on appeal. This deference is rooted in the trial court’s unique position to observe the demeanor of witnesses and assess their credibility firsthand. As the Court noted, “Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal since it is in a better position to appreciate the conflicting testimonies of the witnesses, having observed their deportment and manner of testifying unless certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.” The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this established principle.

The testimony of Aileen Labandero, despite her young age, was deemed credible and sufficient to establish the participation of all three accused in the murder. The Court emphasized that “any child regardless of age can be a competent witness if he can perceive and perceiving can make known his perception to others and that he is capable of relating truthfully facts for which he is examined.” Aileen’s ability to recall the events and identify the accused, whom she knew by name, reinforced the reliability of her testimony. The Court observed that Aileen possessed a strong power of observation and recall, further solidifying her credibility as a witness.

The defense attempted to discredit Aileen’s testimony by highlighting alleged inconsistencies during the police lineup. However, the Court gave more weight to the testimony of Police Officer 2 Sereno Dencing, who testified that Aileen had positively identified the accused. The Court emphasized the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, stating, “It is basic that in the absence of any controverting evidence, the testimonies of police officers are given full faith and credence as they are presumed to be in the regular performance of their official duties.” This presumption further bolstered the prosecution’s case.

The Court also addressed the accused Raelito Librando’s claim of incomplete self-defense. To successfully invoke self-defense, the accused must prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. However, the Court found that the evidence presented did not support Librando’s claim. Instead, Aileen’s testimony indicated that Librando initiated the attack on Edwin Labandero. The Court also noted the severity of the injuries inflicted on the deceased and the lack of any significant injuries on Librando, further undermining his claim of self-defense. As the Court explained, “To avail of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self defense, there must be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.” Since unlawful aggression was not established, the claim of incomplete self-defense was rejected.

The Court acknowledged the trial court’s consideration of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, which applied to all three accused. The Court affirmed this finding, recognizing that Raelito Librando had voluntarily presented himself to the police after they arrived at his father’s house. This act of voluntary surrender demonstrated a willingness to submit to the authority of the law, entitling the accused to a reduced penalty. However, the Court clarified that the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place should be considered as one, rather than separate, aggravating circumstances. According to the Supreme Court, “if the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place or band concur in the commission of the crime, all will constitute one aggravating circumstance only as a general rule although they can be considered separately if their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity.”

Finally, the Court addressed the issue of damages awarded to the heirs of the deceased. While the trial court had awarded compensation for loss of earning capacity, the Supreme Court modified the amount to align with established jurisprudence. The Court clarified the proper formula for calculating net earning capacity, which takes into account the victim’s age, gross annual income, and living expenses. In the absence of proof of specific living expenses, the Court estimated net income to be 50% of gross annual income. Applying this formula, the Court increased the compensation for loss of earning capacity from P293,000.00 to P659,992.50. Thus, the Supreme Court provided further guidance on the calculation of damages in wrongful death cases, ensuring that the award accurately reflects the economic loss suffered by the victim’s heirs.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the eyewitness testimony of a child was sufficient to convict the accused of murder beyond reasonable doubt, and whether claims of self-defense and voluntary surrender should mitigate the penalty.
Why was Aileen’s testimony considered credible?	Aileen’s testimony was considered credible because she demonstrated a strong power of observation and recall, and she was able to identify the accused by their names. The court found her to be a truthful and reliable witness.
What is the significance of the police lineup in this case?	The police lineup was significant because the defense argued that Aileen failed to positively identify the accused during the lineup. However, the court gave more weight to the testimony of the police officer who stated that Aileen did identify the accused.
What is required to claim self-defense?	To claim self-defense, the accused must prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. In this case, unlawful aggression by the victim was not proven.
How did the court calculate the loss of earning capacity?	The court calculated the loss of earning capacity by multiplying the life expectancy (2/3 x [80 – age of victim at the time of death]) with the gross annual income less 50% for living expenses. This formula ensures that the award accurately reflects the economic loss suffered by the victim’s heirs.
What mitigating circumstances were considered in this case?	The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was considered for all three accused, as Raelito Librando voluntarily presented himself to the police. However, the claim of incomplete self-defense was rejected due to the lack of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
How were the aggravating circumstances treated?	The court considered the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place as one, rather than separate, aggravating circumstances. They can be considered separately only if their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently.
What is the practical implication of this case for future trials?	The practical implication is that eyewitness testimony, even from young witnesses, can be critical in determining guilt, and that claims of self-defense must be substantiated with convincing evidence to be considered mitigating. The credibility of witnesses remains a central focus in Philippine criminal law.

This case underscores the importance of eyewitness testimony and the rigorous standards for evaluating claims of self-defense in Philippine criminal law. The Supreme Court’s decision provides valuable guidance on assessing witness credibility, calculating damages, and applying mitigating circumstances. The ruling affirms the court’s commitment to ensuring fair trials and just outcomes, while upholding the principles of due process and the right to a fair trial.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People vs. Librando, G.R. No. 132251, July 6, 2000