G.R. NO. 173197 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROGER DE GUZMAN Y LAUCHANGCO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Roger de Guzman GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity and the additional amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) as moral damages. [5] Appellant filed a notice of appeal. [6] The trial court ordered the transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Court. Thereafter, this Court ordered the referral of the case to the Court of Appeals conformably with the ruling in the case of People v. Mateo . [7] The Court of Appeals, on 27 May 2005, promulgated its Decision affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused, thus: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 11, in Criminal Case No. 2975-M-200 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED. [8] Hence, the instant case. In his Brief, the appellant assigns a single error: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSSED GUILTY OF MURDER DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Appellant takes exception with the trial court's assessment of the evidence before it and in giving weight and credence to the testimony of the prosecution witness, Michael Lauchangco. Well-entrenched is the rule that the matter of assigning probative 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 position to discriminate between truth and falsehood. [9] 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 manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case. [10] In the instant case, prosecution's main witness, Michael Lauchangco, steadfastly pointed to appellant as the person who bashed the victim. He testified as follows: Q: Mr. Witness, do you know the accused in this case, Roger de Guzman y Lauchangco? A: Yes, sir. Q: Why do you know Roger de Guzman? A: Because he is my cousin, sir. Q: To what degree? A: He is my first cousin, sir. Q: Now, on October 15, 2000, at about 2:00 in the afternoon, do you remember where you were? A: Yes, sire. Q: Where were you at that date and time? A: I was in a rice store at San Jose, San Miguel, Bulacan, sir. Q: And in what place is that rice store, Mr. Witness? A: In San Jose, San Miguel, Bulacan, sir. x x x x Q: Aside from you, were there any other persons in that rice store? A: No more, Marcosa Lauchangco, sir, was with me. x x x x Q: While you were there with Marcosa Lauchangco in that rice s