G.R. No. 123300 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ELPIDIO DELMENDO Y URPIANO, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration and finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the information, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P100,000.00 as compensatory damages, P2,500,00.00 as his lost income and P80,000.00 as funeral expenses. [20] Not satisfied with the said judgment, appellant interposed the present appeal, in the process faulting the trial court for (1) giving weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and disregarding the defense evidence, and (2) finding accused-appellant Elpidio Delmendo guilty beond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. [21] The foregoing assignment of errors is anchored on the defense theory that the identity of herein appellant Elpidio Delmendo as the killer of Atty. Elpidio Monteclaro was not positively established by the prosecution. Contrary to the claim of the defense, the identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime by the prosecution witnesses was positive and unmistakable. The decision of the trial court gave full faith and credence to the testimonies of Laguitan and Yanuaria, observing with an amplitude of details that their testimonies were clear, spontaneous and rang with truth. [22] We find no reason to doubt the identification of appellant by the prosecution witness. The incident happened in broad daylight, and the witnesses were both in a vantage position to clearly see the face of the assailant. Laguitan was standing approximately 4 ½ meters from the gunman, [23] while Yanuaria was only about 3.47 meters away from the locus criminis. [24] The two eyewitnesses had full opportunity to take a good look at the physical features of the gunman, without any obstruction. They were thus able to give a clear and detailed description of the gunman immediately after the incident. In fact, it was their visual depiction translated into a sketch that was successfully utilized to determine the true identity and name of the assailant. The credibility of the prosecution witnesses is further enhanced by the failure of the defense to establish any base, unworthy or ill motive which could have induced them to testify falsely against appellant, especially on such a serious charge with grave consequences. Complementarily telling is the fact that appellant was unknown to the said witnesses at the time of the killing. Thus, the conditions of visibility being favorable and the witnesses being unbiased against appellant, their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor and the specific acts constituting the crime should be accepted. [25] Appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment made by the trial court of the testimonies of eyewitnesses. [26] We have doctrinally held that the findings of a trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, given the clear advantage of a trial judge over