G.R. No. 92153 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ARTEMIO OBZUNAR, VIRGILIO OBZUNAR, NELSON ISANAN, JULIO ZILMAR, ALFREDO ISANAN, SR., ALFREDO ISANAN, JR., AND JOSE SUPERIO, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing judgement (sic) is hereby rendered, finding accused: ARTEMIO OBZUNAR, VIRGILIO OBZUNAR, NELSON ISANAN, ALFREDO ISANAN, SR., ALFREDO ISANAN, JR., JULIO ZILMAR and JOSE SUPERIO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. All the accused are sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to pay the heirs of the deceased ANASTACIO MACATO, jointly and severally in the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) PESOS and to pay also jointly and severally the costs of the suit." [10] The Issues On appeal, accused-appellants made the following assignments of errors: [11] "That the trial court erred in giving due weight and credence to the doubtful, perjured, unreliable and uncorroborated testimonies of the three (3) prosecution witnesses. That the trial court erred in holding that conspiracy existed among and between the appellants in killing the victim. That the trial court erred in rejecting the claim of appellant Virgilio Obzunar that he killed the deceased in the act of lawful self-defense. That the trial court erred in not acquitting the appellants on the ground that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt." all of which may be summed up as questioning the trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses and its appreciation of the weight and sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence, vis-à-vis that of the defense. The Courts Ruling First issue: Credibility of Witnesses In deciding this appeal, the Court reiterates the general rule that -- "x x x when the question is raised as to whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial courts choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses demeanor and deportment on the witness stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimonies, and therefore could better discern if such witnesses were telling the truth; the trial court is thus in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Therefore, unless the trial judge plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, his assessment on credibility must be respected." [12] After a thorough review of this case, we find that the trial court did not overlook any such material fact nor did it commit any palpable error in assessing the credibility of the witnesses presented by both sides. It did not err in giving full faith and credit to the narration of Lydia Zilmar as to how her brother was chased and killed by herein accused-appellants, as she was not shown to have any ill motive to testify falsely against the latter. [13] This is further bolstered by the rule that "the testimony of a witness should normally be accepted especially when the witness is the victim or his near relative because the