G.R. No. 121195 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ENEMESIO ABELLANOSA AND CRISANTO ABELLANOSA, JR..

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused ENEMESIO ABELLANOSA and CRISANTO ABELLANOSA, JR. guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, defined and penalized in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code and there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances present hereby sentences each of the said accused to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties prescribed by law and to indemnify the Heirs of Maximo Abadies the sum of P105,788.00 for and as actual damages, including attorney's fees, P100,000.00 for and as moral damages and P50,000.00 for and as death indemnity. Since the accused have been under preventive imprisonment since May 5, 1993, the period of such detention shall be credited in full in their favor in the service of their sentences." The Issues In their brief, appellants assigned the following "errors": [9] "I That the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Crispulo Sanchez and Victoriano Damas II That the trial court erred in not disregarding the testimony of Crispulo Sanchez despite the fact that the trial court found Crispulo Sanchez to have lied on a very vital matter III That the trial court erred in not holding that the (testimonies) of Crispulo Sanchez and Victoriano Damas to be incredible and not worthy of belief IV That the trial court erred in not holding that the physical evidence clearly show that deceased victim Maximo Abadies was killed in some other place and not in the place claimed by prosecution witnesses. V That the trial court erred in holding that physical evidence were available to accused-appellant and yet accused-appellant did not use court processes to produce the same and hence the prosecution is not guilty of willful supression of evidence VI That the trial court erred is not dismissing the instant case and rendering a verdict of acquittal in favor of accussed-appellants" all of which may be summed up as challenging the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, and its appreciation of the weight and sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence, vis-a-vis that of the defense. As earlier stated, the Solicitor General, the People's counsel, in his Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Appellee's Brief dated September 25, 1996, submitted the following conclusion and recommendation: [10] "PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that appellants be acquitted for failure of the prosecution to discharge its bounden duty to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt." As this Court sees it, the resolution of this case hinges on the pivotal question of whether the guilt of the accused-appellants had been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution's evidence. Put differently, was the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficient to overturn the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Constitution in favor of accused-appellants? The answer to this threshold question