G.R. No. 188603 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RAMIL RARUGAL ALIAS “AMAY BISAYA,” ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby rendered finding the [appellant] Ramil Rarugal alias Amay Bisaya GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim the amount of P28,124.00 for actual damages, P50,000.00 for civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as and for moral damages. [11] (Citations omitted.) Appellant filed his notice of appeal on July 21, 2006. [12] He questioned the RTCs finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the commission of the crime and its appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. He argued that witness Sit-Jar lacked credibility for giving inconsistent testimony. Moreover, he averred that there was no basis for the finding that treachery qualified the crime to murder since its elements were not established. [13] On June 30, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the May 29, 2006 decision of the RTC. It stated that witness Sit-Jars positive identification of appellant as the one who stabbed Florendo takes precedence over appellants defense of denial and alibi. Moreover, appellant failed to adduce evidence to show that Sit-Jar had any improper motive to falsely testify against him. The Court of Appeals thus disposed of the appeal in the following manner: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the [appellant] RAMIL RARUGAL is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P27,896.00 as actual damages and the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. The said Decision in all other respect STANDS . [14] Hence, this appeal. [15] Petitioners confinement was confirmed by the Bureau of Corrections on September 30, 2009. [16] Both the appellee [17] and the appellant [18] waived the filing of supplemental briefs and adopted the briefs they filed before the Court of Appeals. We affirm the June 30, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals, with modification respecting the award of damages. This Court has consistently stated that the trial court is in a better position to adjudge the credibility of witnesses, especially if its decision is affirmed by the Court of Appeals. [19] We have been reminded in People v. Clores [20] that: When it comes to the matter of credibility of a witness, settled are the guiding rules some of which are that (1) the [a]ppellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower [c]ourt, unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case x x x; (2) the findings of the [t]rial [c]ourt pertaining to the credibility of a witness is entitled to great respect since it had the opportunity to examine his demeanor as he testified on the witness stand, and, therefore, can discern if such witness is telling the truth or not[;] and (3) a witness who testifies in a categor