G.R. Nos. 137610-11 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MANUEL GUTIERREZ (AT LARGE); JUANCHO GUTIERREZ (AT LARGE); ESTING CARIÑO (AT LARGE) AND ZACARIAS CASTILLO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: In Crim. Case No. SCC-1870, this Court finds the accused Zacarias Castillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of Murder and hereby sentences him to reclusion perpetua to each count and to indemnify the heirs of the victims P50,000.00 for each count of murder committed, and of four (4) counts of frustrated murder and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of an imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium as maximum for each count. In Crim. Case No. SCC-1871, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused Zacarias Castillo is hereby acquitted of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm." [19] Hence, this appeal with the following assignment of errors: "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE MANIFESTLY IMPROBABLE, INCREDIBLE, UNRELIABLE AND BIASED TESTIMONY OF THE SPOUSES, (SIC) LORENZO DE LEON AND CATALINA DE LEON. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT (TO) OR IN REJECTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF ALIBI. III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. SCC 1870." [20] The appeal is bereft of merit. Accused makes much of the fact that the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses, specifically Lorenzo de Leon and Catalina de Leon, show that they could not have possibly seen their assailants. With respect to Lorenzo, accused points out that Lorenzo saw the accused Juancho and Manuel Gutierrez when they blocked the road and started firing at the jeep as they were illuminated by the headlights of the jeep. Lorenzo then immediately jumped off the jeep as soon as the firing began, thus, accused Castillo argues, he could not have possibly seen him (accused Castillo) during or after the firing took place. As regards Catalina, she was already hit after the first volley of shots, then she fell down on the floor of the jeep, preventing her to see their assailants. Accused also avers that it was unnatural and unthinkable that he passed the back of the jeep if he was indeed one of the assailants as the natural tendency of perpetrators in an ambush would be to hide their identities. In upholding the decision of the trial court, we adhere to the well-settled rule that the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best left to the discretion of the trial court which, unlike a review court, observed the demeanor and conduct of witnesses while testifying and thus was in a better position to assess their capacity for truth. [21] While accused's arguments based on the witnesses' affidavits speculate on what could have actually happened, the prosecution witnesses testified on what actually happened, i.e. , that they saw the accused Castillo as one of the four men who fired at