G.R. No. 141237 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOSE

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused JOSE NASAYAO y BORROMEO SR. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER as defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law and to indemnify the heirs of Joves Camata the sum of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) for the death of the victim and as actual damages as stipulated and agreed upon by the parties.10 Hence this appeal, raising the following errors: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING MORE FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND DISREGARDING THE THEORY HONESTLY ADVANCED BY THE DEFENSE. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE AND NOT MURDER. [11] Accused-appellant's first assignment of error hinges on the question of credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He argues that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are replete with contradictions, thereby casting doubt on their reliability. The first inconsistency refers to the television programs that they were watching at the time the stabbing incident took place. Buelva stated that it was TV Patrol [12] while Casabuena said it was Magandang Gabi Bayan . [13] Also, Buelva testified that accused-appellant stabbed the victim thrice, [14] while Casabuena testified that accused-appellant stabbed the victim only twice. [15] Lastly, Casabuena narrated that when accused-appellant entered the house, he was holding both knives in his hands, and after a short remark to the victim, he immediately stabbed the latter with the two knives. [16] On the other hand, Buelva stated that when accused-appellant entered the house, the two knives were tucked in his waist. [17] We are not convinced. The alleged inconsistencies claimed by accused-appellant refer only to minor details which do not affect the credibility of the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses. The fact remains that they categorically identified the victim as the one who suddenly entered the Casabuena house and stabbed the victim. Considering that the witnesses were present at the time the incident happened and had an unobstructed view of what transpired, undoubtedly, their eyewitness account of the incident must be given full faith and credit. This Court has consistently ruled that findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight, even finality, on appeal, unless the trial court has failed to appreciate certain facts and circumstances, which, if taken into account, would materially affect the result of the case. [18] The reason for this rule is that trial courts have superior advantages in ascertaining the truth and in detecting falsehood as they have the opportunity to observe the manner and demeanor of witnesses while testifying. [19] From a perusal of the testimony of both witnesses, we find no cogent reason to disreg