G.R. No. 182192 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. AGRIPINO GUEVARRA Y MULINGTAPANG ALIAS "BOY DUNGGOL," ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the July 4, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch IV, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should also be awarded. [39] Appellant elevated the instant case before us assigning a single error, to wit: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [40] Appellant maintains in his lone assigned error that his testimony and that of his corroborating witness, Ravino, were more credible than the testimonies of Anacleto and Antonette; that his denial and alibi were meritorious; and that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in his favor. In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness. [41] After carefully reviewing the evidence on record and applying the foregoing guidelines to this case, we found no cogent reason to overturn the RTC's ruling finding the testimonies of Anacleto and Antonette credible. As an eyewitness to the incident, Anacleto positively identified appellant as the one who shot Inspector Barte with a short firearm. He was merely one arm's length from Inspector Barte and one meter away from appellant during the incident. In addition, the crime scene was well-lighted by a nearby lamp post and lights coming from the videoke bar which enabled him to recognize appellant. Further, he was familiar with the face of appellant because the latter was his barriomate. Anacleto's direct account of how appellant shot Inspector Barte is candid and convincing, thus: Q: Now, while you were outside the [videoke] restaurant at around 9:15 in the evening of August 24, 2002, do you remember any untoward incident that happened thereat? A: Yes, sir. Q: What was that particular incident? A: The shooting of Major Barte (Inspector Barte), sir. Q: Who shot Major Barte? A: Agripino Guevarra y Mulingtapang alias "Boy Dunggol." Q: How did it happen that accused was there at that time and said place? A: I did not notice where he came from, he suddenly appeared. Q: After he suddenly appeared, what did the accused do? A: He approached Major Barte and asked "are you Major Barte?" and afterwards he fired shots at Major Barte. Q: Was Major Barte able to answer that question of the accu