G.R. No. 218200 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JEFFREY COLLAMAT A.K.A. "RIC­RIC", JIMBO SALADAGA AND RONILO RONDINA, ACCUSED, JEFFREY COLLAMAT A.K.A. "RIC-RIC", ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . It likewise ordered appellant to pay the heirs of the victim: P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages. [13] Appellant thereafter appealed the RTC Judgment before the CA. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In its Decision dated December 12, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC Judgment with modification in that, the appellate court directed appellant to pay the heirs of the victim P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, in addition to the damages awarded by the RTC. [14] The CA ruled that appellant was clearly identified as one of the perpetrators of the crime. [15] It noted that: Here, prior to the stabbing of the victim, the assailants' group and that of the victim's group were all drinking and singing [at] Analyn's Videoke Store. Both groups had an altercation but were pacified. The group of appellant was even offered a round of beer just to appease them which they willingly accepted. It should be pointed out that the two groups started their beer drinking around three o'clock in the afternoon and ended about past six o'clock. Thus, there was an interval of about three hours prior to the stabbing incident. In our firm view, the time interval was sufficient for the eyewitness to recognize appellant's group as among the persons who followed them from the store. It should be emphasized that Benido even bid the other group good-bye when he and the victim left the store ahead of the appellant's group. [16] The CA further held that Benido's positive identification of appellant as one of the victim's assailants was bolstered by his detailed account of how the crime was carried out and appellant's exact participation in it. [17] Moreover, the CA found that the victim's stabbing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery, as "the manner of the execution of the crime clearly reflects that its commission was made in a manner that would afford no opportunity for the victim to escape or retaliate." [18] Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal. The Issues Appellant raises the following issues for the Court's resolution: First , whether the identity of appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime was proven beyond reasonable doubt; [19] And second , whether the victim's stabbing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. [20] The Court's Ruling The appeal is unmeritorious. In cases where the issue rests on the credibility of witnesses, as in this case, it is important to emphasize the well-settled rule that "appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment made by the trial court because of the trial judge's unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination." [21] We explained in Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals [22] that the findings of the trial court will not be overturned absent any clear showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood o