Tadeja vs. People [G.R. No. 145336] Case Digest

 

Tadeja vs. People

G.R. No. 145336

 

Facts:

An Information filed with the RTC of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro charging petitioners, along with Plaridel Tadeja, with the crime of homicide for the killing of one Ruben Bernardo.  A companion Criminal Case for frustrated homicide – was also lodged in the same branch of the court at the instance and on the complaint of petitioner Reynante Tadeja against the two sons, Russel and Robenson, of Ruben Bernardo, the deceased.

After the joint hearing, the trial court, finding the prosecution's witnesses against the Tadejas more credible and their account more tenable, came out with its decision convicting the Tadejas of the crime of homicide and acquitting the brothers Russel and Robenson in Criminal Case.

With the exception of Plaridel Tadeja, the Tadejas brothers, Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo and Ferdinand, went on appeal to the CA claiming that despite the joint trial of the two (2) cases, the trial court failed to consider the testimonies of Maria Regina Cortuna and Leticia Bernardo. It is their posture that the testimonies of said two (2) witnesses bare a major inconsistency with the story of the prosecution. Not finding in the records of the cases any trace of the testimonies of witnesses Maria Regina Cortuna and Leticia Bernardo, the CA, dismissed the Tadejas' appeal. In their motion for reconsideration, the Tadejas attached the missing transcripts of stenographic notes relative to the testimonies of the two (2) witnesses aforementioned which the trial court supposedly failed to consider. Nonetheless, the CA denied the motion.

 

Issue:

Whether or not CA erred in failing to reconcile the testimonies of the witnesses for the Bernardos, which diametrically contradicted each other on material and substantial matters.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

While petitioners are correct in asserting that the totality of the evidence in Criminal Cases No. 814 and 815 should have been taken into consideration because the trial thereof was conducted jointly, the CA cannot be said to have erred in rendering the assailed decision and resolution since there was no trace of the missing testimonies in the records. Furthermore, no matter how anomalous this state of affairs may appear, we agree with the CA in its denial Resolution that such testimonies, even if given due consideration, would not alter the trial court's finding of conviction.