G.R. No. 201445 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. HERMENIGILDO MAGLENTE Y MEDINA ALIAS “JUN MAGLENTE” AND ROLANDO VELASQUEZ Y GUEVARRA ALIAS “RANDY,” ACCUSED-. DAN MAGSIPOC Y CANCELER AND PABLO INEZ ALIAS “KA JAY,” ACCUSED.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the appealed Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City (Branch 59), dated 21 December 2007, is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS : (1) In Criminal Case No. 00-032 for murder - a) The trial courts award of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos ([P]75,000.00) by way of civil indemnity is reduced to Fifty Thousand Pesos ([P]50,000.00); b) Exemplary damages of Thirty Thousand Pesos ([P]30,000.00) is awarded to the heirs of the deceased victim, in addition to the moral damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos ([P]50,000.00); and c) Actual damages of Eight Hundred Ninety Thousand Pesos ([P]890,000.00) is reduced to Fifty Thousand Pesos ([P]50,000.00). (2) In Criminal Case No. 00-033 for frustrated murder -- a) The penalty imposed by the trial court is modified and appellants are sentenced to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor , as minimum, to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum; b) Complainant Pepe A. Mendoza is awarded civil indemnity in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos ([P]30,000.00), moral damages of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos ([P]25,000.00) and another Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos ([P]25,000.00) as exemplary damages; c) The actual damages of Seven Hundred Sixty[-]Nine Thousand Ninety[-]Eight Pesos and Twenty[-]Four Centavos ([P]769,098.24), awarded by the trial court, is reduced to One Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Forty-Eight Pesos and Eleven Centavos ([P]129,548.11). SO ORDERED . [23] Dissatisfied, Maglente brought his conviction for review to this Court, anchored on the sole issue of whether the CA erred in affirming the RTCs judgment convicting him of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder. [24] The Courts Ruling The appeal is devoid of merit. Maglentes argument is centered on the alleged uncertainty over his identification by De Leon as one of the assailants, and the absence of testimony from Mendoza and Chuas father identifying him as such. On this point, the Court has consistently abided by the rule that the trial court is in a better position to adjudge the credibility of witnesses, especially if its decision is affirmed by the CA, 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. [25] The Court finds no reason to depart from the assessment of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, as this is supported by the records of the case. Thus, it was the finding of the RTC that at first, De Leon, indeed pointed to Magsipoc as the one who stood at the corner of Jesus and Lakandula streets, and one of those who fired at the van. Nevertheless, the RTC further found that De Leon was able to positively identify Maglente during cross-examination and during the investigation conducted by SPO3 Cruz one week after the incident. The CA also made a similar finding and concluded further that [De Leons] seeming confusion in pointing to Hernando Magsipoc during the