G.R. No. 137604 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROBERT ARANETA A.K.A. GILBERT ARANETA ALIAS GILBERT, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Robert Araneta also known as Gilbert Araneta alias Gilbert guilty beyond reasonable of the crime of Murder , defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. In the absence of any other aggravating circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the prison term of reclusion perpetua , together with all the accessory penalties thereof. Accused Araneta is also ordered to pay his proportionate share in the costs and in the damages awarded to Estelita Latoja under the decision of this Court in this case as against accused Silva and Gulane which will be equivalent to 1/3 of the total amounts provided in said decision." [7] Hence this appeal where the accused-appellant assigns the following assignment of error: " THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT ROBERT ARANETA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE 248 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED. " [8] The accused-appellant anchors his defense on mistaken identity, denial and alibi. In support of his defense, the accused-appellant maintains that the RTC erred in giving full-faith and credence to the testimony of the lone prosecution witness, Estelita Latoja (ESTELITA). The accused-appellant maintains that the RTC failed to consider several documents, which establish that Robert Araneta is not the same as Gilbert Araneta whom ESTELITA allegedly saw shoot her son. Considering that she could have been mistaken in her identification of the accused-appellant, her credibility comes into question. After a meticulous review of the evidence, we resolve to uphold the RTC's judgment of conviction. The accused-appellant's claim that ESTELITA was not a credible witness and that her testimony suffers from incredibility deserves scant consideration. We have carefully gone over the records and find nothing in her account of the events that would show that her testimony was not credible. On the contrary, ESTELITA made a clear narration of the shooting of her son in her testimony. According to ESTELITA, at around 5:00 a.m. of December 21, 1995, a co-worker of her son, Leo Latoja (LEO), went to their house to ask for transportation money for Leo who left their house earlier that morning. LEO could not ask for the money himself since he was avoiding his one-year-old child who would always insist on going with him. LEO's wife, Shirley then proceeded to LEO who was waiting inside a tricycle parked some two hundred (200) meters away from their house. Shirley however failed to give LEO the money since she forgot her purse. LEO instead asked ESTELITA, who happened to follow Shirley to the place where LEO was, for the money. After giving LEO some money, ESTELITA turned her back from LEO and had proceeded to take two (2) steps away from him when she suddenly heard a gunshot. She turned her head and saw SILVA accompanied by two armed men whom she later identified as G