G.R. No. 139908 - FERNANDO MANANGAN, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (EIGHTH DIVISION) AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered sentencing accused Manangan, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to suffer imprisonment of from Eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum to Seventeen (17) years and Four (4) months of reclusion temporal , as maximum. The accused Manangan is ordered to pay Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as indemnity to the legal heirs of the deceased Carlos Estacio (Art. 2206). [6] The trial court gave credence and full probative weight to the testimonies of Johnny It-itan and Angelina Tobias, but disbelieved the testimony of the petitioner and his witness Arsenio Algaba. On appeal, the petitioner prayed that the Court of Appeals reverse the decision of the RTC on his claim that the trial court erred, as follows: ... (1) in giving undue credence to the prosecution witnesses Johnny It-itan and Angelina Tobias and (2) in not acquitting the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt. [7] The Court of Appeals ruled on the issues raised by the petitioner and affirmed the decision of the trial court. In his petition for review in this Court, the petitioner reiterates the same issues and submitted the same argument he made before the Court of Appeals. The petitioner contends that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence and full probative weight to the testimonies of It-itan and Tobias despite the inconsistencies therein, and in finding his testimony and that of his witness Algaba incredible. We reject the contention of the petitioner. The well-settled rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court as well as its calibration of the evidence of the parties, its assessment of the credibility and probative weight of the witnesses, and its conclusion based on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued or misinterpreted facts and circumstances of substance, which if considered, will alter the outcome of the case. [8] In this case, the findings of the trial court and its conclusions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We have reviewed the records and we find no justification to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the trial court. The petitioner avers that It-itan testified that he saw the petitioner as he approached the victim while holding a knife. The petitioner, likewise, cited a portion of It-itans testimony, thus: PROS. BANTA: Q While you were inside the bowling lanes that night of July 15, 1987, do you remember if there was any unusual incident that happened? A This case, sir. Q What is this case you are referring to? A The incident regarding the death of Carlos Estacio, sir. Q What actually happened at the bowling lanes on the night of July 15, 1987? A First, I was infront (sic) of the bowling alley I recognized Carlos Estacio and Mr. Lacsamana sitting there at the same time facing the canteen, they were talking then Estacio left, Lacsamana followed hi