Consti II case digest: People vs. Mahinay

FACTS:

Larry, the responded herein is an employee of Elvira Chan, the mother of the Ma. Victoria Chan, 12 years old, who is the owner of the unfinished big house being built. That on Sunday morning of 8AM, he was with Gregorio Rivera in a drinking spree but went home when he already was drunk at around 10AM. At about 9PM, the respondent herein showed up in the store of Norgina Rivera, sister in law of the mother of the accused, to buy lugaw. Norgina asked Larry Mahinay why he appeared to be so uneasy and his hair was disarranged, he was also still drunk and walking in a zigzagging manner.  Meanwhile, Elvira noticed that her daughter, Ma. Victoria, was missing.

On the following day, the respondent at about 2AM boarded a jeepney in Talipapa, and alighted at the top of the bridge of the North Expressway and had thereafter disappeared. 

The same morning, a certain “Boy” found the body of Ma. Victoria Chan, in a septic tank and reported the matter to her parents. 

The parents, with the policemen tried to look for Larry where he worked before, in Caloocan, but to no avail, was not able to find him. 

It was in Batangas where Larry was apprehended. From then, Larry, with the assistance of the counsel, made an extrajudicial confession. However, during the arraignment, he retracted his statement and testified that he made it involuntary due to fear, which according to him that he would be salvage by the policemen who arrested him if he would not admit the crime. Hence this petition. 

ISSUE:

The issue here boils down to the credibility of the witnesses.

HELD:

Settled is the rule that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’ department on the stand while testifying.

The absence of any improper motive or ill-motive on the part on the part of the principal witnesses for the prosecution all the more strengthens the conclusion that no such motive exists. 

Though it is not enough to only have testimonies from credible witnesses to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt, the Court gave credence to several circumstantial evidence, which upon thorough review, were more than enough to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.