G.R. No. 182522 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. NOEL T. ADALLOM, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused NOEL ADALLOM guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder described and penalized under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 63 thereof, and there being no other aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Danilo Villareal, as follows: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P57,084.80 as actual damages; and To pay the costs. With respect to Crim. Case No. Q-01-105817 for the attempted murder of Babelito Villareal after applying the indeterminate sentence law, the court hereby sentences accused to suffer imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years of prision mayor . For insufficiency of evidence, Criminal Case No. Q-01-105876 is hereby dismissed. [25] Accused-appellant appealed the foregoing RTC judgment before the Court of Appeals. Accused-appellant filed his Brief [26] on January 13, 2006 while plaintiff-appellee, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Brief [27] on May 29, 2006. In its Decision dated July 31, 2007, the Court of Appeals agreed with the factual findings of the RTC and ruled thus: Verily, we reiterate the jurisprudential doctrine that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses; this can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the trial court overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would have altered the result. In the course of our review, the records disclose, that the trial court has considered all the evidences of both parties and, thus, has ruled correctly. Trial courts have the opportunity to see witnesses as they testify in court, an opportunity not readily available to appellate courts. Thus, we find no reason to depart from the above ruling. We have examined the records and we confirm the trial courts findings that the testimonies of the witnesses are more trustworthy than the testimonies of the defense witnesses, particularly the appellants. With the application of prevailing laws and jurisprudence to the evidence presented, We cannot conclude otherwise but rule for the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED in toto . [28] Hence, accused-appellant comes before us on appeal. In our Resolution [29] dated July 23, 2008, we required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. Both plaintiff-appellee and accused-appellant manifested, however, that they had already exhausted their arguments before the Court of Appeals and would no longer file any supplemental brief. [30] Accused-appellant assails his conviction for murder and attempted murder on these grounds: The trial court erred i