G.R. No. 114937 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOSE

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Prosecution having proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offense of murder, the Court hereby sentences accused Joselito Apelado y Palmores with reclusion perpetua and accused German Bacani y Ramos, in view of Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, with an imprisonment of from 12 years and one day to 20 years of reclusion temporal and to solidarily pay the heirs of Rodolfo de Jesus the sum of P10,800.00 as actual damages, P50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, P10,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages. The bail bond of accused Apelado is hereby cancelled." [4] The trial court found the existence of conspiracy among the assailants. Their method of attacking the victim showed a congruence and commonality of purpose. It ruled out treachery as it found that the victim was aware of the assault against him. The victim raised his hands and prepared for a fight. It also observed that the victim was able to ask a question to German Bacani before he was hit on the legs. It did not appreciate evident premeditation. In this appeal, accused-appellants contend: I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES. II THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE LOWER COURT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE. The appeal is without merit. In assailing the credibility of prosecution witness Luzviminda Padua, accused-appellants contend that it was impossible for her to see the victim urinate after he was hit above the legs by German Bacani. Her narration that German stabbed the throat and the legs of the victim while Apelado simultaneously hacked his head with a bolo defies reason. Padua is called biased as she worked as a laundry woman of the victim's family. Joseph Quidayan is also assailed as an incredible witness. For not mentioning the Bacanis, they contend that Quidayan did not really see the incident. The credibility of witnesses is generally for the trial court to determine. The reason is that it had seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their demeanor and manner of testifying. [5] Its factual findings therefore command great weight and respect. [6] These findings can only be overturned if the trial court overlooked facts of substance and value that, if considered, might change the result of the case. [7] Appellants capitalize on the alleged testimony of Padua that she saw the victim urinate after he was hit on the legs. The allegation is inaccurate for she testified as follows: "Continuation of Cross Examination by Atty. Castro: Atty. Castro: So, you want to tell this court that when Rodolfo de Jesus was hit by Herman (sic) Bacani, the victim Rodolfo De Jesus urinated? A Yes, sir. Q And you saw the urination? A I did not see but because he fell down that is why I concluded that he urinated , sir. Q So that the pain that was felt by Rodolfo De Jesus was merely your conclusion? A Yes, sir. Q And in the same manner his act of urinating because of