G.R. Nos. 133191-93 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. WILFREDO ALARCON, EDDIE TOMPONG AND EDUARDO GUMAWA, ACCUSED. EDDIE TOMPONG AND EDUARDO GUMAWA, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it rendered the appealed judgment earlier quoted. The judgment against TOMPONG and GUMAWA is before us on automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 22 of R.A. No. 7659. ALARCON did not appeal from the judgment. A notice of appeal should have been filed pursuant to Section 3, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. As to him, the decision has become final. This decision then treats only of the review of the judgment against TOMPONG and GUMAWA. We quote verbatim the assignment of errors in the Appellants' Brief: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN BASING ITS DECISION ON THE CONTRADICTORY AND OUT OF THIS WORLD TESTIMONIES OF THE TWO (2) ALLEGED EYE WITNESS, MELITA CANCER AND OSTIMIANO UNTALAN AND OTHER PROSECUTION WITNESSES. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED EDDIE TOMPONG AND EDUARDO GUMAWA OF ALIBI. TOMPONG and GUMAWA find incredible Melita Cancer's failure to do anything to help the victim who was only 10-1/2 years old and the daughter of her good friend, secure help for the girl, and report the incident immediately upon arriving home. They also found the testimony of Ostimiano Untalan improbable and contradictory. Finally, they fault the trial court for not giving any weight to their defense of alibi. In the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee filed on 26 January 2000, the Office of the Solicitor General debunks the claims of TOMPONG and GUMAWA and urges us to affirm the challenged judgment, except as to the civil liabilities which, pursuant to our rulings in People vs. Victor, [14] People v. Robles, [15] and People v. Maglente, [16] should be modified: the civil indemnity in Criminal Case No. 5630 should be increased from P50,000 to P100,000, and in each of Criminal Case No. 5631 and Criminal Case No. 5632, civil indemnity of P75,000 and moral damages of P50,000 should be awarded but the exemplary damages should be vacated. After a thorough review of the evidence on record, we affirm the judgment of conviction of accused-appellants TOMPONG and GUMAWA. Once again, as is often the case in appeals from convictions in criminal cases, at the core of this petition is the credibility of eyewitnesses. The trial court found worthy of belief the accounts of Melita Cancer, Ostimiano Untalan and co-accused ALARCON. We can do no less. Appellate courts accord the highest respect to the trial court's assessment of the testimonies of eyewitnesses by the trial court because of its unequaled opportunity to observe on the stand their demeanor and manner of testifying and to detect whether they are telling the truth or not. [17] This rule admits of exceptions, such as when the evaluation was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case. [18] None of the exceptions obtains in these cases. TOMPONG and GUMAWA capitalize on Melita Cancer's running away, not attempting t