G.R. No. 177162 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROBERTO PAJABERA Y DOE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the prosecution having proven the guilt of accused Roberto Pajabera y Doe beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby found guilty of the crime of murder as charged. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the heirs of Majen Bolanos the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P10,000.00 as actual damages and to pay the costs. Accused is likewise meted the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification as provided in Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code. Considering that herein accused has undergone preventive imprisonment, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with the time he has undergone preventive imprisonment subject to the conditions provided for in Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. [17] Rejecting appellant's claim of self-defense, the trial court found it improbable that the victim could be accidentally hit on the shoulder with the knife during the respective positions of the parties as described by appellant. [18] If, posed the trial court, the victim was indeed kneeling and stooping down on appellant who was lying with his back flat on the ground prior to the fatal blow, the victim could have been hit on the chest or the stomach, but not on the shoulder. [19] The trial court found that the killing was attended by treachery, the suddenness of the attack having deprived the unarmed victim of any means to defend himself. [20] It ruled out evident premeditation, however, there being no proof of when appellant conceived of killing the victim. [21] On appeal, the Court of Appeals, by Decision of December 22, 2006, [22] affirmed that of the trial court, holding that appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. Appellant thus comes before this Court. Both appellant and the Solicitor General manifested that they were dispensing with the filing of supplemental briefs and submitting the case for decision based on the Briefs they had filed with the appellate court. [23] The appeal fails. What appellant essentially wants is for this Court to weigh the credibility of the prosecution witnesses against that of the defense witnesses and review the observations and conclusions of the trial and appellate courts. It is settled that the issue of credibility is a question best addressed to the trial court, and that its findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the appellate court as in the present case, are accorded the greatest respect in the absence of a showing that it ignored, overlooked, or failed to properly appreciate matters of substance or importance likely to affect the results of the litigation. [24] Independently of the factual findings of the lower courts, this Court, in its review of the records, found the findings in order. Appellant would have it that he was lying with his back flat on the floor while the victim was kneeling and stooping down on him holding the knife.