Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FLORANTE PADRONES 471 SCRA 447 (2005)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FLORANTE PADRONES 471 SCRA 447 (2005)

To be credible, testimonial evidence must not only come from the mouth of a credible witness, more so, it should be reasonable and in accord with human experience for there is no better test has yet been found to determine the weight of the testimony of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind. One evening, a grenade exploded near the Northern Operators and Drivers Association (NODA) Terminal which killed Elias Laurente and slightly injured two children and an elderly lady in the vicinity. Elpidio Presto gave a sworn statement that Florante Padrones had an altercation with Ome Pareja in the NODA terminal and that while Presto attempted to pacify them, Padrones threw a grenade at his adversaries. Anastacio and Domingo Lastrella gave a joint sworn statement that while they were standing by the NODA terminal, they saw Padrones threw the grenade and immediately fled away. Two months later, Presto and the Lastrellas withdrew their respective statements. Nathan Hermosura, a tricycle driver, for the first time after more than a year since the incident occurred, testified that he saw Padrones threw the grenade at his enemies who were two to three meters away. On the basis of hid testimony, the trial court and the Court of Appeals found Padrones criminally liable.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC and CA erred in giving credence to Hermosura‘s testimony

HELD:

Hermosura claimed that he brought the 2 children in the hospital; however, he could not furnish their names which, is incredible given the usual procedure in hospitals to note down the names of patients. Also such testimony was belied by Pareja‘s claim that he brought his children to the hospital and that they were more or less 12 meters away from the explosion and not 2 meters as testified by Hermosura. For by the natural course of things, if the children were merely two meters away from the place where the blast occurred, they would have been killed or maimed or seriously wounded. But they merely suffered slight injuries. Pareja in testifying for the defense, instead of for the prosecution, only indicates that he was not convinced of appellant‘s involvement. Also, Hermosura could have not known that the victim Laurente was in the second floor of his house if he was at the front of the NODA terminal when the incident happened. And why Hermosura remained in the scene despite his claim that he saw appellant was dangling the grenade for 2 minutes before he threw it, defies credulity for the normal reaction of a person is to go to a safe place to avoid being hit. Hermosura‘s lack of credibility becomes more pronounced on considering his belated posturing as a witness for the prosecution. To be credible, testimonial evidence should come not only from the mouth of a credible witness. The testimony must also be credible, reasonable and in accord with human experience. No better test has yet been found to determine the weight of the testimony of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind. The Supreme Court finds that Hermosura’s testimony failed to pass this test. Since the prosecution must rely on the strength of their own evidence but it has failed to discharge its own burden of prima facie proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of Padrones, it is unnecessary to discuss the merits of the defense.