Case

PP. v. Madali
Crimpro
Facts:
An appeal from the decision of the RTC Branch 81 of Romblon, Romblon finding accused-
appellants guilty of the murder of Reynaldo M. Abrenica and sentencing each of them to reclusion
perpetua. The body of Reynaldo as found by his ife on the landing of the stairs of their house. An
autopsy conducted by !r. "illase#or of the $%$ Crime &aboratory yielded to the conclusion that the
cause of death is intracranial hemorrhage as a result of traumatic head in'ury.
Three years after Reynaldo(s death, the case as filed after an alleged eyeitness, Mercy "illamor,
surfaced and implicated the accused-appellants. Based on the testimony of this itness, the
accused-appellants ere found guilty in the aforementioned decision.
The accused-appellants, in their appeal, alleged that the trial court erred in failing to resol)e doubts
and discrepancies in its findings of fact in fa)or of the accused and that the court erred in finding
credible the testimonies of Mercy "illamor and !r. "illase#or.
The complainant filed a Motion for Time to *ile Brief separate from that hich the +,- ould file,
by ay of an anser to the brief of accused-appellants. This motion as denied. The +,-
subse.uently filed a Manifestation recommending the ac.uittal of accused-appellants. /n )ie of the
position ta0en by the +,-, complainant filed a Memorandum for the $ri)ate Complainant 1after filing
a Manifestation and Motion to *ile Brief2 hich as noted by the Court.
Ruling and Reasoning:
Rule 133, ,ec.1 of the Re)ised Rules on Criminal $rocedure pro)ides that 4any party may appeal from a
'udgment or final order, unless the accused ill be placed in double 'eopardy.5 /t has been held that the ord
4party5 in the pro)ision includes not only the go)ernment and the accused but other persons ho may be
affected by the 'udgment.
The complainant has an interest in the ci)il liability arising from the crime. 6ence, in the prosecution
of the offense, the complainant(s role is that of a itness for the prosecution.
+rdinarily, the appeal of the criminal cases in)ol)es as parties only the accused, as appellants, and
the ,tate, represented by the ,ol-en, as the appellee. The participation of the pri)ate offended party
ould be a mere surplusage if the ,tate ere simply to see0 affirmation of a 'udgment of con)iction.
6oe)er, here the +,- ta0es a contrary position and recommends, as in this case, the ac.uittal of
the accused, the complainant(s right to be heard as regards indemnity and damages arises.
%e)ertheless, the e)idence is insufficient to sustain the accused-appellants( con)iction. Mercy "illamor(s
testimony is riddled ith inconsistencies, improbabilities and uncertainties hich relate to material points.
7)idence, to be belie)ed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible itness but must itself be
credible.