G.R. No. 122477 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDISON ARELLANO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Wherefore, in view of the foregoing considerations and finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua , to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P100,000.00 as compensatory damages and P13,000.00 as medical and funeral expenses, and to pay the costs. Thus, appealing before this Court, appellant raises the following assignment of errors: A THE DECISION WAS PURELY BASED ON THE SPECULATION THAT DEFENSE WITNESS MARIO GUILLERMO MUST HAVE LIED. B THE DECISION OVERLOOKED IF NOT TOTALLY IGNORED THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS ROMEO TINDENILLA. C THERE WAS MORE THAN ENOUGH DOUBT AS TO THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT. D THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES ARE NOT FREE FROM DOUBT. The above errors raised by the appellant boil down to the issue of the credibility of witnesses. The prosecution and the defense presented contradictory accounts of the events leading to the death of Andres Ventura. And this Court has invariably held, the opinion of the trial court as to which version of the commission of the crime should be believed is entitled to great respect. The oft-repeated rationale born of judicial experience is that the trial judge who heard the witnesses testify and had the occasion to observe their demeanor on the stand was in a vantage position to determine who of the witnesses deserve credence. [14] A close examination of the records reveals no justification to depart from the trial court's findings on the issue of credibility. Appellant asserts that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are "not free from doubt." He stresses that Roberto Morales and Antonio Cordova had been drinking beer for two and a half hours and, therefore, their "observation of the event could have been faulty or mistaken." [15] The credibility of said witnesses could have been adversely affected had there been proof as to how drunk they were. However, appellant failed to show that intoxication had so debilitated their senses to the point of negating their claim of having seen Andres' attacker, [16] hence, the credibility of said witnesses remain untarnished. Appellant, likewise, failed to show any ill-motive on the part of witnesses Roberto Morales and Antonio Cordova for testifying against him. There being no showing of improper motive on the part of Roberto and Antonio for identifying the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. [17] Both prosecution witnesses clearly identified accused-appellant as the person who stabbed the victim. Both Roberto Morales and Antonio Cordova worked at the Victory Rice Mill where appellant was a security guard, hence, they were familiar with each other. Both were categorical in their declaration that it was appellant who stabbed Andres Ventura. Roberto Morales testified, thus: Q What was the ca