The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld the conviction of three members of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) behind the Dec. 30, 2000 bombing of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) which killed 11 persons.
In a 56-page decision by Associate Justice Danton Bueser, the CA’s Seventh Division did not give credence to the alibi of the accused-appellants Mukhlis Hadji Umpara Yunos (also known as Hadji Onos, Moklis, Muklis and Mocles), Zainal Paks (alias Paks and Mamasao Gaon Naga) and Mohamad Amir (alias Amir, Abdul Fatak Paute) that they were in their respective hometowns when the bombing took place.
Associate Justices Rosmari Carandang and Ricardo Rosario concurred.
The Manila regional trial court (RTC), in a ruling issued on Jan. 23, 2009, declared the accused-appellants guilty of multiple murder, multiple frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder.
While it affirmed the jail term of reclusion perpetua imposed by the Manila RTC against the three JI members, the appellate court, however, modified its order insofar as the damages to be paid to the heirs of the victims.
From the original P125,000, the CA directed the three to pay a total of P175,000 as civil indemnity and moral and exemplary damages to the heirs of each of 11 deceased.
The CA also ordered the accused-appellants to separately pay four surviving victims the amount of P50,000 as damages and P50,000 to three other victims as moral damages.
The CA gave weight to the testimonies of witnesses led by Cusain Ramos, who confessed to helping the three and their cohorts in procuring explosives that were used in the bombing and Anna Marie Velasquez, one of the surviving victims. Yunos was arrested on May 25, 2003 at the airport in Cagayan de Oro City while attempting to escape with the assistance of an Egyptian missionary while Paks and Amir were both arrested in Marawi City in August 2004 while they were on their way to see the governor of Lanao del Sur.
Yunos claimed he could not have been the suspected bomber because he did not fit the descriptions given by the witnesses immediately after the bombing and the photo line-up and police line-up identifications of accused-appellant were highly suggestive and improper.
The CA, however, ruled that even if there was an improper out-of-court identification of the accused-appellant, the same was already cured after Velasquez testified in court and identified him as one of the bombers.
“When the credibility of the witnesses is at issue, appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court, the latter being in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial,” the CA declared.
Ramos’ credibility was questioned by the accused-appellants on the ground that his testimony was “inconsistent, full of lies and uncorroborated.”
The CA noted that Ramos had nothing to gain in testifying against the accused-appellants but instead had put the lives of his family in danger, thus he could only have been compelled to tell the truth.
“Human experience tells us that a person, in the absence of a showing of any ill-motive, would not impute grave crime upon another unless the same is true,” the CA stressed.
The CA added although there were inconsistencies in the testimony of Ramos, these were not enough for the trial court to disregard his entire testimony.
“It has been held, time and again, that alibi, as a defense, is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive identification by truthful witnesses. It is evidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence,” the CA explained.
Comments
Post a Comment