G.R. No. 175594 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JUNJUN DUCABO, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding [appellant] Jun Jun Ducabo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as charged and sentenced to undergo the prison term of Reclusion Perpetua and suffer the accessory penalty provided for by law and indemnify the heirs of the deceased Rogelio Gonzales y Factor the sum of P50,000.00 and pay the costs. [10] (Emphasis supplied.) Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals by filing a Notice of Appeal. [11] Appellant argued that the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dated 31 July 2006, affirming with modification the RTC Decision, the decretal portion of which reads: WHEREFORE , the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION . Appellant JUNJUN DUCABO is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, ROGELIO GONZALES y FACTOR, the following sums: (a) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, and (b) Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as temperate damages. The civil indemnity of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court is MAINTAINED. [12] Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed the aforesaid Decision to this Court. This court required the parties to simultaneously submit their respective supplemental briefs. Both the Office of the Solicitor General and the appellant manifested that they were adopting their respective briefs filed before the Court of Appeals as their supplemental briefs. After a meticulous review of the records, this court resolves to uphold the judgment of conviction against the appellant. The appellant alleges that the trial court merely relied on the bare testimony of Rolando, the prosecutions alleged eyewitness, in convicting him of the crime charged. The appellant avers that Rolando testified that he saw him shoot the victim; however, during Rolandos cross examination, he categorically admitted that at the time of the shooting incident, he was looking at the ground, as he was then sweeping inside their house. Furthermore, Rolando cannot even describe the firearm allegedly used in killing the victim, which proved that he was not in the crime scene and he did not actually witness the shooting. The aforesaid arguments raised by the appellant hinges on the credibility of a Rolandos testimony. It is well-entrenched that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of a witness deserve great weight, given the clear advantage of a trial judge in the appreciation of testimonial evidence. We have recognized that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, because of their unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses, in the process of unearthing the truth. [13] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the