G.R. No. 146271 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MARCIANO TINAMPAY, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, accused MARCIANO TINAMPAY is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, and the Court hereby imposes upon him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Accused is likewise directed to indemnify the heirs of victim Eulogio Entac the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00). The accused is likewise hereby adjudged to pay moral damages in the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) and another amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) for exemplary damages." [13] Hence, this appeal with the following assignment of errors, viz : "I. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. II. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE AND WEIGHT TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE. III. ASSUMING SANS ADMITTING THAT IT WAS ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHO KILLED THE VICTIM, THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING AGAINST HIM THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY. IV. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER." [14] The appeal is devoid of merit. Time and again, we have ruled that the findings of a trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight as the trial judge has a clear advantage over the appellate magistrate in appreciating testimonial evidence. The trial judge is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witness as he had the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note his demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. Absent any showing that the trial court's calibration of credibility was flawed, we are bound by its assessment. [15] The trial court declared, viz : "The Court finds the categorical, straightforward and credible assertion of prosecution's eyewitness Porferio Tindoc that it was accused Marciano Tinampay who suddenly hacked the unwary victim to his untimely death, worthy of belief. Although while on the witness stand Porferio made some minor inconsistencies on the time frame and some collateral matters, these appear mainly due to his lack of education and failure to fully comprehend the questions. On the material points, Porferio remained consistent and credible." [16] Considering the trial court's assessment of Tindoc's credibility, it is of no moment that he was the lone eyewitness presented by the prosecution as the running case law is that ". . . the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and had been delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner." [17] We find no reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of Tindoc's testimony. On the other hand, the accused's denial of responsibility for the crime and his version of the hacking incident deserve scant consideration. Well-settled is the