G.R. No. 136847 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND, VS. RODULFO P. VILLARIN AND IÑEGO LARGO (AT LARGE), ACCUSED, RODULFO VILLARIN Y PASANA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Wherefore, on the basis of all the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Rodulfo Villarin GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of FORTY (40) years reclusion perpetua and to pay the offended party the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity. "If the accused is a detainee, the period of detention shall be credited to him in hull if he abides by the terms of convicted prisoners, if not, for only four-fifths (4/5) thereof. "SO PROMULGATED." On September 15, 1998, accused RodulfoVillarin filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. [14] The Court's Ruling The appeal is meritorious. We resolve to acquit the accused Villarin on reasonable doubt. The well-entrenched rule is that the assessment of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses is entitled to respect. [15] True, the trial court made a categorical statement that the " defense's principal witness, Rodulfo Canonigo suffers from a credibility crisis ." [16] However, if we examine the reason behind the trial court's credulity, we find that such is not enough to reject his testimony. To our mind, the inconsistencies in his testimony are on minor matters. Whether or not Rodulfo Cononigo first went to the public market, or to the house of Iñego Largo for lunch is not important. The incident happened not at lunch time but at five o'clock in the afternoon. There is no dispute as to this, so anything that transpired before this is not material. To disregard Rodulfo Canonigo's testimony on this basis would result in injustice. Rodulfo Canonigo has no motive to falsely testify. At this juncture, we explain why we cannot rely on the testimony of prosecution witness Isabelo Jamile. The oft-quoted rule is that a witness would not normally accuse another of such a grave offense if it were not true. The rule is that, if the accused were truly innocent, it would be against the natural order of human nature and the presumption of good faith for a witness to falsely testify against him. [17] However, we find that here the legal truism does not apply. Central is the testimony of Rodulfo Canonigo that Isabelo Jamile participated in the attempt to rob accused-appellant Rodulfo Villarin. Rodulfo Canonigo testified that Isabelo Jamile hit accused-appellant with a piece of wood twice on the forehead. If these were bare assertions, we would hesitate to accept this narrative. However, there is medical testimony that accused-appellant Rodulfo Villarin suffered injuries, specifically, "two multiple abrasions on the forehead," caused by the application thereto of a hard object. [18] The doctor who examined accused-appellant Rodulfo Villarin the day after the incident stated that the injuries he suffered could be "caused by one who is being mauled by several persons." [19] This corroborates the defense's version and gives us reasonable doubt of accused-appellant's guilt. When a circumstance is capable of two interpretations, one consistent with the accused's g