Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , this Court finds the accused Edwin Alcodia y Simon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences him to suffer a jail penalty of Reclusion Perpetua , with the accessory penalties of the law and to pay the heirs of Ryan Feria y Verona the amount of P 50,000.00 as moral indemnity, to pay his heirs the amount of P 119,700.00 as actual damages, to pay P 25,000.
WHEREFORE , this Court finds the accused Edwin Alcodia y Simon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences him to suffer a jail penalty of Reclusion Perpetua , with the accessory penalties of the law and to pay the heirs of Ryan Feria y Verona the amount of P 50,000.00 as moral indemnity, to pay his heirs the amount of P 119,700.00 as actual damages, to pay P 25,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs. SO ORDERED . In appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the RTC ratiocinated: The Court is convinced that Alcodia fatally stabbed Feria. But was the killing of the victim a case of murder as charged? As shown by the evidence spread on the record, Alcodia fatally attacked Feria with a knife suddenly, unexpectedly and without any warning as the latter was boarding Bus No. 729 bound for Olongapo City. Feria then was unarmed and unaware of the evil design of accused Alcodia when the latter attacked Feria . Accused gave the victim no chance to defend himself or repel the assault against him, considering the sudden and unexpected attack on his person, thereby ensuring its accomplishment. Accused-appellant anchors his appeal on this assignment of error: THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN RELYING SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE AND DISREGARDING COMPLETELY HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS PREVIOUSLY ATTACKED BY THE VICTIM AND HE MERELY ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE . [27] Accused-appellant invokes several Decisions of this Court sustaining self-defense. However, without expounding how these Decisions apply to his case, he concludes that his plea of self-defense is proper, thus, he should be acquitted. In its Appellees Brief, the Solicitor General contends that as between the version of the prosecution and that of the defense, the former deserves more weight because first , the RTC found the prosecution witnesses credible, they having testified with sincerity and candor; and second , no ill motive was shown why the prosecution witnesses would falsely testify against accused-appellant. The appeal is bereft of merit. Accused-appellants lone assignment of error borders on the matter of credibility of witnesses. Time and again, this Court has pronounced that matters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness deportment on the stand while testifying. [28] The brazen face of the liar, the glibness of the schooled witness in reciting a lesson, or the itching over-eagerness of the swift witness, as well as the honest face of the truthful one, are alone seen by the trial judge. [29] Thus, the appellate court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, [30] unless there appears in the record some facts or circumstances of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which have been misinterp