Lenido Lumanog and Agusto Santos, Petitioners, -versus-
People of the Philippines, Respondent
Synopsis: Petition for Review under Rule 45.
Appellants were the accused perpetrators of the killing of former Chief of Police, Col. Rolando Abadilla.
The principal witness for the prosecution was Freddie Alejo, a security guard employed where the ambush happened. He testified on what he saw and positively identified the accused.
The suspects raised the defense of alibi, lack of fingerprint and ballistic evidence. They also alleged torture in the hands of the police officer.
The trial court convicted the appellants. The case was automatically elevated to the Supreme Court because of the nature of the penalty. The Supreme Court transferred to case to the Court of Appeals for review. The Court of Appeals after so many years and rigodon of Judges/Justice, affirmed the findings of the trial court. However, the lawyer of the defense imputed several errors on the decision of the Court of Appeals, hence the petition for review, to wit: A. The CA did not make an honest and real review of the appealed case because the CA only relied on the report of the Office of the Solicitor General and alleged the CAs decision wholesale copying verbatim of the arguments and other contents therein;
B. The affirmation of the conviction over-relies on the testimony of one alleged eyewitness, Freddie Alejo. There were discrepancies between the sworn statement and the testimony in open court;
C. The affirmation of the conviction misappreciates the alibi defense of the defense;
D. The affirmation of conviction gravely erred when it unduly disregarded other pieces of evidence; and
E. The penalty imposed by the court of appeals is unconstitutional because of the addition of the penalty of without benefits of parole.