G.R. No. 219591 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. GENERALDO M. CONDINO, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . It likewise ordered appellant to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000 as moral damages, P175,000.00 as actual damages, and P30,000.00 as attorney's fees. Appellant thereafter appealed the RTC Decision before the CA. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In its Decision dated October 21, 2014, the CA affirmed with modification the assailed RTC Decision as follows: a) P30,000.00 was awarded to the heirs of the victim as exemplary damages; and b) the amounts of moral and actual damages were reduced to P50,000.00 and P25,000.00, respectively. [16] The CA rejected appellants claim of self-defense. It found that appellant was unable to discharge his burden of proving unlawful aggression, as his "version of the events was uncorroborated, and his testimony was found to be less credible by the RTC. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself." [17] In addition, the CA held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt, given that: first , the victim was killed; second , appellant judicially admitted to the killing of the victim; [18] third , the victim's killing was attended by treachery; and fourth , the killing was not parricide or infanticide. [19] The CA pointed out that "the attack on Arrabis was unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of the unarmed victim considering that he was casually talking to [Eufemio] delos Santos and [Victoriano] Canales with no inkling that an attack was forthcoming." [20] It thus concluded that "[t]he attack was executed in a manner that Arrabis was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.'' [21] Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal. The Issues Appellant raises the following issues for the Court's resolution: First , whether the prosecution was able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering that ''the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were replete with inconsistencies and contradictions in material points directly going to their perception and recollection of the stabbing incident." [22] And second , whether the victim's stabbing was attended by treachery. The Court's Ruling The appeal is unmeritorious. In resolving issues involving the credibility of witnesses, the Court adheres to the well settled rule that "appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment made by the trial court because of the trial judge's unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination." [23] Thus, in Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals , [24] the Court explained: Also, the issue hinges on credibility of witnesses, We have consistently adhered to the rule that where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of credibility of w