G.R. No. 180915 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CHARLIE NAZARENO Y MELANIOS, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused, Charlie Nazareno y Melanios guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and hereby sentence him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. He is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS for the life of the victim and FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS for moral damages with legal interest from the time this decision has become final until the same is fully paid. [13] On intermediate appellate review, [14] the Court of Appeals affirmed the guilt of the appellant but modified the award on the civil aspect of the case. In addition to civil indemnity and moral damages, the Court of Appeals likewise ordered appellant to pay exemplary and temperate damages. Hence, appellant appealed to this Court contending that: I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT, WHEN HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION'S EYEWITNESS AND EVIDENCE. III. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT TREACHERY ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. [15] In challenging his conviction, appellant assails the credibility of Jericho Capanas, the eyewitness to the killing, by claiming that there were inconsistencies in his testimony. Appellant argues that, Capanas initially claimed that it was only appellant who was running amok; then later, he stated that there were several drunk men causing a disturbance. Also, Capanas declared that he was present when the victim pointed to the accused as the person who stabbed him; but when asked later on during trial where he was when the confrontation between the victim and the assailant happened, he answered that he was still at his house. Appellant likewise questions the act of Capanas of "waiting for the victim to be killed first" before calling the police when he was already aware that appellant was running amok. [16] These contentions of appellant fail to persuade us. The matters pointed out by appellant are minor and inconsequential and do not affect the substance of the eyewitness' declaration, nor the veracity or weight of his testimony. The issues raised by appellant do not pertain to the actual act constitutive of the offense charged, [17] as on this point, the testimony of Jericho Capanas is clear and convincing: Q: Did you see the stabbing? A: Yes, sir. Atty. Latiph Where did the accused stabbed (sic) the victim? A: On his chest and he was hacked on his ear, sir. (Witness pointing to his chest and right ear). Q: What part of the house? A: Just in front of the door, sir. Q: How far were you at that time? A: Less than an arms length because I was standing there, sir. [18] (Emphasis supplied.) This account of Jericho Capanas is corroborated by the testimony of the medico-legal officer who performed the autopsy on the body of the victim. Thus: Q: And what did you find out