G.R. No. 218108 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. RODOLFO ADVINCULA Y MONDANO, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Rodolfo Advincula y Mondano GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the death of Reggie Tan y Arañes. Accused Rodolfo Advincula y Mondano is further adjudged to pay the heirs of Reggie Tan y Arañes, represented by his mother, Teresita A. Tan, the following amounts: 1) Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity; 2) Php50,000.00 as moral damages; 3) Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages; 4) Php67,460.00 as actual damages; and 5) Php413,070.00 by way of lost earnings, plus costs of suit. [13] Not contented with the RTC resolution of the case, the accused-appellant appealed before the CA. The Ruling of the CA The CA sustained the position of the accused-appellant that the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was absent in this case since the prosecution failed to show that the accused-appellant planned to kill Reggie. Notwithstanding the absence of evident premeditation, the CA maintained the finding of the RTC that treachery attended the assault upon Reggie; thus, it held the accused-appellant liable for murder. The CA found that the penalty imposed by the RTC was in accordance with law and the award of damages was in conformity with jurisprudence. [14] The fallo of the CA decision reads: WHEREFORE , the instant appeal is DENIED . The Decision dated 17 December 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219, in Criminal Case No. Q-05-136086 is hereby AFFIRMED . [15] ISSUES I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE. II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APRRECIATING TREACHERY AND EVIDENT PREMEDITATION. III. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING P75,000.00 AS CIVIL INDEMNITY TO THE HEIRS OF THE VICTIM. [16] OUR RULING The appeal is without merit. The justifying circumstance of defense of relative was not proven in this case. Jurisprudence emphatically maintains that when the issues involve matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. [17] Hence, unless some facts or circumstances of weight were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted as to materially affect the disposition of the case, [18] factual findings of the RTC are accorded the highest degree of respect especially if the CA has adopted and confirmed them. [19] Both the RTC and the CA found the testimony of Rollane credible and straightforward compared to the accused-appellant's claim that he acted in defense of his relatives. The Court found no reason to deviate from this finding considering that the records failed to prove that the RTC and the CA had overlooked a material fact that otherwise would change the outcome of the case or had misunderstood a cir