G.R. No. 169246 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. NICOLAS GUZMAN Y BOCBOSILA, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding accused Nicolas Guzman Y Bocbosila guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and further ordered to pay the heirs of the late Michael Angelo Balber the sum of Thirty-Five Thousand Four hundred Seventy Pesos (P35,470.00), Philippine Currency, as actual damages, excluding the Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) Bagbag Cemetery as there was no evidence to justify the award of the same; Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), as moral damages and the additional civil indemnity of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 26 November 2001. [19] On 28 February 2005, the Court Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming with modification the RTC Decision. [20] The modification pertains only to the penalty imposed by the RTC, thus: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89, in Criminal Case No. Q-99-88737 is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects except that the sentence be RECLUSION PERPETUA only. On automatic review before us, appellant assigned the following errors of the lower court: I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE [DOUBT] OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE THE PALPABLE DISCREPANCIES AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES. II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING EXCULPATORY WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE. III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO PRODUCE SUBSTITUTE OR ADDITIONAL WITNESSES FOR HIS DEFENSE. IV. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY. [21] Anent the first issue, appellant claims that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses should not be given any weight as the same are filled with discrepancies and inconsistencies. According to him, Ronald and Edgardo testified that appellant and his two companions used only one knife in stabbing Michael. Inspector Malaza, however, declared that appellant and his two companions were armed with separate knives during the stabbing incident. He also avers that Inspector Malaza gave contradicting versions of how the latter apprehended him after the incident. Further, Edgardo testified that after the incident, he immediately went to the house of Michael and informed Danilo of what he witnessed. Danilo, however, declared that while he was on his way home, he saw Michael lying at the corner of Sto. Nino St. and Mactan St., and, that the malefactors were running away. Appellants contention is bereft of merit. A witness testifying about the same nerve-wracking incident can hardly be expected to be correct in every detail and consistent with other witnesses in every respect, considering the inevitability of differences in perception, recollection, viewpoint