G.R. No. 191063 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ALDRIN M. GALICIA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, this Court renders judgment finding the accused ALDRIN GALICIA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA . Consequently, he is hereby ordered to indemnify the victim the amount of Php50,000.00 as civil damages. Considering that the Court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of accused Jun Asuncion who has remained at large, let an alias warrant of arrest be issued against him. Aggrieved, Galicia assailed the decision on appeal. The CA sustained the trial courts finding and found the same to be in order. The appellant now seeks recourse in this Court maintaining the issues raised before the CA as reversible errors committed by the court a quo in giving credence to the testimonies of Flores and Enriquez despite serious contradictions and material inconsistencies, while disregarding or ignoring the testimony of defense witness Barangay Chairwoman Lourdes Rosales. Our Ruling We find the appeal bereft of merit. Time and again, we have ruled that factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record. [9] In numerous instances, this Court observes restraint in interfering with the trial courts assessment of the witnesses credibility, absent any indication or showing that the trial court overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion, more so, when the CA sustained such assessment, as in this case, where it affirmed the trial courts findings of fact, the veracity of the testimonies of the witnesses, the determination of physical evidence and conclusions. As exception to the rule, the only time a reviewing court is not bound by the trial courts assessment of credibility arises upon a showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that was overlooked which, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case. [10] With this exception as basis we reviewed the records for any indication of arbitrariness or clear oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight that can warrant a reversal of the findings of the courts a quo . We found none. Galicia calls our attention to the discrepancy between the respective testimonies and affidavits of prosecution witnesses Flores and Enriquez, to wit: A. Testimony of Flores: [11] She pointed to Galicia as the man driving the motorcycle while the other man approached her in the garden at back x x x. However, she contradicted herself and said that she asked the first man who approached her, this time pointing to Galicia who was in court, to go inside the carinderia (canteen) since it was raining x x x; She also declared that after she heard the gunshots, she looked out of the window of the carinderia and saw Judge Rosales Pajero moving slowly then hitting the wall at the corner of Gonzales and Platon Streets. [Flores] testified that she did not know how the Pajero was fired up