G.R. Nos. 142919 and 143876 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RICARDO NAPALIT Y PARAL, DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 96-150264, the court finds accused Ricardo Napalit y Paral guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide with the attendant aggravating circumstance of the offense having been committed by an organized/syndicated crime group of which the accused belongs, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection and to pay the costs. On the civil liability of the accused, the court further sentences him to pay Evelyn Gomez, widow of the slain security guard, Pio Gomez, actual and moral damages in the respective sums of P118,000.00 and P300,000.00, and indemnity for the loss of life of the victim in the sum of P50,000.00, with interest thereon at the legal rate of 6% per annum from this date until fully paid. In Criminal Case No. 97-156381, the court likewise, finds accused Ricardo Napalit y Paral guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of R.A. 6539, or carnapping, and sentences him to suffer imprisonment of 25 years and to pay the costs. [19] In his brief, accused-appellant ascribes the following errors to the trial court: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. EVEN GRANTING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THE PLAN TO COMMIT ROBBERY, THE TRIAL COURT, NONETHELESS, ERRED IN ATTRIBUTING TO HIM AND HOLDING HIM LIABLE FOR THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE WHICH HAPPENED ON THE OCCASION OF THE ROBBERY. [20] On the first assigned error, accused-appellant maintains that his identification by Santos and Saclolo as one of the more than six armed men during the incident was not established with moral certainty for, so he argues, said witnesses were at the time of the robbery fraught with fear and nervousness. To buttress his claim, accused-appellant draws attention to Santos failure to hear the gunshot which first hit Gomez when he (Santos) was struggling with his assailant for the possession of the latters gun, which failure, accused-appellant alleges, prevented Santos from taking a clear look at the armed man attending to Saclolo, identified as accused-appellant, since his (Santos) attention was fully focused on his assailant. Accused-appellant readily admits, however, that both Santos and Saclolo were credible, conceding that their respective testimonies were straightforward and consistent insofar as their recollection of the disarming incident is concerned. [21] When the issue of credibility is involved, appellate courts generally do not disturb the findings of the trial court since the latter is in a better position to pass on it, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying, unless it is shown that it overlooked certain facts or circumstances of substance that, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case. [22] In the case at bar, the trial court found the testimony of witnesses Santos and Saclolo to be worthy of credence. From the transcripts of