G.R. No. 140544 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ELMER DAMITAN Y MANTAWEL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the court finds accused Elmer Damitan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and (sic) defined and penalized under the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 7659, and there being no ordinary aggravating nor mitigating circumstances present, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of his victim Leon Cahapon the sum of P50,000.00." The Issues Hence, the present appeal. Accused-appellant Damitan raised the following assignment of errors: "I THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER ON THE PART OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT." The Court's Ruling We find the appeal without merit. In the first assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court failed to appreciate the justifying circumstance of self-defense. He avers that the elements of self-defense are present. He claims that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim Cahapon. It was Cahapon who called him in a very harsh tone and challenged him to go down from his house. When appellant was going down the "ladder", Cahapon allegedly boxed him. Thereafter, Cahapon tried to stab him with a knife but he was able to disarm Cahapon and then they struggled. Appellant further argues that the knife belonged to the victim and he merely prevented or repelled the attack against his person. We uphold the trial court's rejection of appellant's plea of self-defense. When the accused admits killing a person but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of his defense. [18] However, appellant's version of the incident was uncorroborated. His bare and self-serving assertions cannot prevail over the positive identification of the two (2) principal witnesses of the prosecution. [19] There was no evidence to indicate that the prosecution witnesses were moved by improper motive to testify against the appellant. Hence, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are entitled to full faith and credit. The rule is settled that factual findings of the trial court are accorded great respect since the trial court is in a much better position than an appellate court to properly evaluate the evidence and observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying. [20] The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and there is no reason to depart therefrom. As found by the trial court and this Court, appellant Damitan went to the barrio hall and suddenly stabbed victim Cahapon from behind. He was clearly identified by prosecution witnesses Sumin-ao and Junine who were very near the victim. Appellant was likewise not a stranger to the two (2) prosecution witnesse