MANILA, Philippines—The Court of Appeals has affirmed the murder convictions of five men charged with killing then Ilocos Norte Vice Gov. Rolando Abadilla in an ambush 12 years ago, saying their identification by a lone witness was enough to uphold the guilty verdict.

The appellate court also said that even if the claims of torture by the “Abadilla 5”—Cesar Fortuna, Rameses de Jesus, Lenido Lumanog, Joel de Jesus and Augusto Santos—were true, this did not mean they were innocent, in light of the eyewitness account.

Citing the abolition of capital punishment, the court reduced the earlier death sentences imposed by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court to reclusion perpetua (or up to 40 years in prison) with no possibility of parole.

Lumanog and Fortuna were found to have been the gunmen, and the three others the lookouts, in the killing.

But all five had said they were tortured by the police into admitting to the crime.

The communist Alex Boncayao Brigade had claimed responsibility for the killing and had supposedly turned over the watch of Abadilla, a former Philippine Constabulary colonel, which was allegedly taken by the gunmen during the ambush, to activist priest Fr. Robert Reyes.

Nevertheless, pleas to reopen the case and present additional evidence had been rejected by the Quezon City RTC, and the ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Reached for comment, Soliman Santos, lead lawyer of the Abadilla 5, said he was in Singapore and had yet to read the appellate court’s decision.

He said he also had to study his options and meet with the other lawyers of the group.

Sufficient in itself

In the 16-page decision dated April 1 and written by Justice Agustin Dizon, the appellate court’s 16th Division said witness Freddie Alejo’s identification of the five men as Abadilla’s attackers was sufficient to show their involvement.

It said Alejo, a security guard, had stuck to the main points of his account despite “lengthy and exhaustive” questioning by the Abadilla 5’s legal counsel.

Alejo was also only 10 meters away from the crime scene and was in an elevated guardhouse, thus affording him an unobstructed view of the killing, the court said, adding that the attack had taken place in clear and broad daylight.

“Even standing alone, Alejo’s positive and unequivocal declaration is sufficient to support a conviction for murder against appellants. Indeed, the testimony of a single witness, when positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even for murder,” the court said.

It pointed out that there was no law that says that the testimony of a single witness must be corroborated in order for it to be given full faith and credit.

No motive

Alejo’s account was also given more weight because he had no motive to falsely testify against the five men, according to the appellate court.

And even if the allegation of the Abadilla 5 that they were tortured and forced to confess by the police were true, this did not absolve them of the murder charge because the latter was based on their identification by Alejo, the court said.

“Such positive identification is totally independent of their extrajudicial confessions. For another, the constitutional guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights cannot be used as a shield whereby a person guilty of a crime may escape punishment,” it said.

The court said the ballistics test that supposedly showed that the bullets and bullet shells found at the crime scene did not match the firearms allegedly used in the crime was inconclusive and could not prevail over the eyewitness’ statement.

“Besides, there is no showing that the firearms supposedly found in appellants’ possession long after the incident were the same ones they used in the ambush-slay,” it said.

Treachery, premeditation

Contrary to the claim of the five men, the Quezon City RTC correctly ruled that there was treachery and premeditation in the killing of Abadilla, the appellate court said.

It said treachery was shown because Abadilla was shot by two of the men while he was driving, taking him by surprise and giving him no chance to defend himself.

It added that premeditation was shown when De Jesus and Santos were seen by Alejo repeatedly pacing on Katipunan Avenue before the attack took place.

According to the court, the conspiracy of the five men was shown by the mode of execution that also revealed that each of them had a specific role in it.

And their alibis failed to show that they could not have been at the crime scene, it said.

Not impossible

Joel de Jesus had maintained that he was driving a tricycle when the attack took place. But the appellate court said it was not impossible for him to have gone to Katipunan using that tricycle.

It said the contention of Rameses de Jesus and Lumanog that they were hunting for treasure in Pampanga when Abadilla was attacked was unsupported by other evidence and was thus not credible.

Rameses de Jesus testified that he and Lumanog were using the latter’s car, which means that it was not impossible for them to travel to Quezon City via the North Expressway, it added.

To Santos’ argument that he was at Fabella Hospital in Manila—a story corroborated by his brother-in-law—the appellate court said the latter was not an impartial witness.

It also said that although Fortuna had argued that he was in Camp Crame at the time of the attack, the place was near Katipunan and he could have gone to and from the two locations easily.

“In any event, appellants’ alibis were belied by the positive identification made by prosecution eyewitness Freddie Alejo,” the court added.