G.R. NO. 90301 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JUANCHO GATCHALIAN, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

accordingly dismissed the case filed by accused-appellant against Arthur Aumentado. Instead, the filing of an Information for murder against accused-appellant was ordered. [6] Accordingly, on August 29, 1986, an Information [7] for murder was filed against accused-appellant Juancho Gatchalian. [8] After trial, he was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49, in a decision, dated December 8, 1987. [9] Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant raises the following errors in his brief: [10] I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE BY THE ACCUSED DESPITE CLEAR EVIDENCE ON RECORD SUPPORTING THE SAME. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES, NAMELY LUISITO AND AGAPITO BOTH SURNAMED, REYES WHO BOTH HAVE INTEREST IN THE CASE. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE WEAK EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. IV GRANTING WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT ACCUSED COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF ARTHUR AUMENTADO, EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE CRIME WAS NOT ATTENDED BY THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF MURDER. We find the foregoing contentions to be untenable. First. The first three assignments of errors involve basically a question of credibility. The time-honored rule is, of course, that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is so because the trial judge heard the witnesses testify and had the opportunity to observe their demeanor and manner of testifying. [11] As we explained in People v. Cayabyab: [12] . . . Having the advantage of directly observing witnesses, the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of these observations arrive at an informed and reasoned verdict. There is no reason for departing from this salutary rule. The defense version that accused-appellant was attacked while he and his aunt were walking home simply defies credibility. (1) The medical certificate [13] presented by accused-appellant sh