G.R. No. 146696 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. LEONILO PIDOY Y LANGRIO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court finds the accused, Leonilo Pidoy y Langrio, Guilty of the crime of Murder, as defined in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended, attended by the qualifying circumstance of Treachery, as his guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this Court, sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa, Rizal. Accused, Leonilo Pidoy is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the late Romeo Santia the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS as moral and exemplary damages, and to pay the cost of this suit. Accused, Leonilo Pidoy, shall, in the service of his sentence, be given full credit for the entire period of his detention pending trial. Hence, this appeal based on the foregoing arguments: I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT TREACHERY WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE PROSECUTION; II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FATAL WEAKNESS OF THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS PABLO BRILLANTES IN TERMS OF IMPROBABILITIES, GROSS INCONSISTENCIES AND IRRECONCILABLE CONTRADICTIONS; III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE VICTIM'S DEATH WAS CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY AS DEFINED UNDER ARTICLE 251 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE; AND IV THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PRESENT VITAL CORROBORATIVE EYEWITNESSES NAMED BY ITS LONE STAR WITNESS. [4] Appellant generally assails the trial court's findings of fact which were based mostly on the testimony of lone prosecution witness Pablo Brillantes. We see no reason to depart from the well-entrenched doctrine that findings of facts of the trial court are accorded due respect and weight unless it has overlooked material and relevant points that would have led it to rule otherwise. The time-honored rule is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate between truth and falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case. [5] In the assessment of evidence, much depends on the credibility, not only of witnesses, but also of the testimonies themselves. In assessing the defense's testimonial evidence, the trial court observed, thus: This Court notes, with keen interest, that the participants of this submitted incident, other than accused himself, Leonilo Pidoy, were without appellations. They were not identified. These loose statements of unsubstantiated assertions, insusceptible o