LUMANOG v.

PEOPLE
642 SCRA 248
Facts
Appellants Lumanog, Santos, Fortuna and De Jesus were convicted by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103 for the ambush-slay of Col. Rolando N. Abadilla, the former
Chief of the Metropolitan Command Intelligence and Security Group of the Philippine
Constabulary, in June 13, 1996 along Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City. Their conviction was based
mainly on the testimony of the security guard Freddie Alejo who, at the time of the killing, was on
duty at a building fronting the crime scene and located only a few meters away.
Accused Lumanog filed a motion for reconsideration which assailed the inconsistencies in the
declarations of Alejo. Accused De Jesus followed suit by filing a motion for a new trial, based on
newly discovered evidence to present two witnesses. Fortuna submitted an Affidavit executed by
a certain Orencio Jurado, Jr. who claimed to be one of the police officers initially assigned to
investigate the case. Fortuna contended that said belated statement would certainly cast doubt on
the procedures undertaken by the police authorities in the apprehension of the likely perpetrators.

Such motions, however, were denied by the RTC.

The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of the accused-appellants based on the credible
eyewitness testimony of Alejo.
Issue
Whether or not the CA gravely erred in denying the motions for a new trial and reconsideration
of the accused based on the testimony of a sole witness and introduction of additional evidence.
Held
No. The testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to support conviction so long as it is clear,
straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court. The Court accords high respect, even
with finality, to the evaluation made by the lower court of the testimonies of the witnesses
presented before it.
To justify a new trial or setting aside of the judgment of conviction on the basis of additional
evidence, it must be shown that the evidence was “newly discovered” pursuant to Section 2, Rule
121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended. Evidence, to be considered newly
discovered, must be one that could not, by the exercise of due diligence, have been discovered
before the trial in the court below. Hence, the belatedly executed affidavit of Jurado does not
qualify as newly discovered evidence that will justify re-opening of the trial and/or vacating the
judgment.