G.R. Nos. 121201-02 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 15,377-87, finding the accused Rommel (Umi) Magpatoc and Edwin Yungot guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with no attendant circumstance, both are hereby sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay the cost; to pay the offended party jointly and severally the amount of P12,000.00 as actual damages; each to indemnify the offended party the amount of P50,000.00 as compensatory damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages. In Criminal Case no. 15,378-87, finding the two (2) accused Rommel (Umi) Magpatoc and Edwin Yungot guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with no attendant circumstance, both are hereby sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay the cost; to pay the offended party jointly and severally the amount of P13,990.00 as actual damages; each to indemnify the offended party the amount of P50,000.00 as compensatory damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages." [98] Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant Edwin Yungot raises the following assignment of errors: [99] "I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT YUNGOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT THEREOF WAS NOT DETERMINED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II AT ANY RATE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS NOT PROVEN DURING THE PROCEEDINGS THEREIN." Accused-appellant Rommel Magpatoc, on the other hand, raises the following assignment of errors: "I THE TRIAL COURT HAD PREJUDGED THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BY REASON OF HIS DEFENSE OF ALIBI. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES' TESTIMONIES DESPITE MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INCONSISTENCIES. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE CHARACTER EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE ACCUSED. IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE THE STRENGTH OF THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI." This Court is not persuaded. Accused-appellant Edwin Yungot's arguments , in fine, revolve on the matter of credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In particular, Yungot cites several instances of inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witness Jose Lagamon, Jr. For instance, on direct examination at Yungot's trial, Lagamon, Jr. claimed that Yungot stabbed Celis. However, during the hearing on Magpatoc's motion for bail at Magpatoc's trial, Lagamon, Jr. asserted on both direct and cross-examinations that he could not recognize the person who stabbed Celis because the incident happened suddenly; but immediately thereafter, he declared that he could recognize Celis' assailants only by face, [100] and in open court pointed at accused-appellant Rommel Magpatoc as the person who stabbed Celis. [101] Yungot argues that the "[s] aid inconsistencies in the testimony of Jose Lagamon, Jr. should not have been overlooked by the trial court