G.R. No. 188124 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JONEL FALABRICA SERENAS AND JOEL LORICA LABAD, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, considering that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of both accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused JONEL FALABRICA SERENAS alias JOE-AN and JOEL LORICA LABAD are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA pursuant to R.A. 9346 which repealed the death penalty law. However, pursuant to Sec. 3 thereof, they are not eligible for parole. Accused JONEL FALABRICA SERENAS alias JOE-AN and JOEL LORICA LABAD are jointly and severally liable to pay the heirs of NI×O NOEL RAMOS, the following amounts, to wit: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex-delicto; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P23,000.00 as actual damages; P20,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees; and To pay the cost of suit. [14] Lending full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court concluded that the appellants conspired in assaulting and stabbing Niסo. It gave full weight to the dying declaration uttered by Niסo to his brother, as well as the statement of Dianne, who allegedly witnessed appellants threaten Niסo the night before the incident. It also appreciated the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation in the commission of the crime. Furthermore, the trial court regarded the uncorroborated testimonies of appellants to be "full of inconsistencies and unworthy of weight and credence." [15] On 13 September 2006, appellants filed a notice of appeal informing the RTC that they are appealing the decision to the Court of Appeals. [16] The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC by awarding exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. Thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision appealed from, being in accordance with law and the evidence, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is awarded to the heirs of the victim. The Decision in all other respects STANDS. [17] On 13 August 2008, a notice of appeal was filed assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals before this Court. [18] On 26 October 2009, the parties were required to simultaneously file their respective supplemental briefs. [19] In two (2) separate manifestations, both parties opted to adopt their briefs submitted before the Court of Appeals. [20] Summarizing the arguments of both parties, the issues to be resolved are: (1) whether the testimonies of the witnesses are sufficient to prove appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether the killing was qualified by treachery and evident premeditation; (3) whether conspiracy has been adequately proven. In convicting appellants, the lower courts relied heavily on the testimonies of witnesses Cesar and Dianne, which they deemed to be credible. Jurisprudence dictates that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded great respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Th