G.R. No. 127840 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROLAND PARAISO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby finds the accused Roland Paraiso guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co-principal by direct participation of that certain John Doe of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide as now defined and penalized by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7659. The felony at bar was attended by three aggravating circumstances, to wit: that the act was committed in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her sex, that the act was committed in the dwelling of the offended party (morada) without the offended party having given any provocation therefore, and that advantage was taken by the accused and of his companion of their superior strength -- without any mitigating or extenuating circumstance to neutralize or offset any of these aggravating circumstance. He is accordingly sentenced to the supreme penalty of death by lethal injection as mandated by law. The accused Roland Paraiso is also sentenced to restore unto the heirs or family of the late Lolita Tigley the sum of P200.00 in cash and the assorted jewelries, wristwatch and Video camera valued at P179,800.00, which he and his companion stole from Lolita Tigley that afternoon of June 11, 1995 at her dwelling at Lipata, Minglanilla, Cebu. The accused is also ordered to pay moral damages in the sum of P200,000.00 and exemplary damages in the sum of P100,000.00 to the heirs of the late Lolita Tigley. Costs shall also be taxed against the accused. May God have mercy on your poor soul, Roland Paraiso." Hence, this automatic review. Accused-appellant Paraiso raised the following assignment of errors in his brief: "THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN OVERLOOKING AND FAILING TO CONSIDER CERTAIN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF WEIGHT AND VALUE, WHICH IF CONSIDERED WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY ALTERED THE RESULT OF THE CASE. "THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN MAKING CONCLUSIONS OF FACT WHICH ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. "THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FLIMSY AND UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION. "THE LOWER (COURT) ERRED IN FINDING THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT." The assigned errors are interrelated and the present case hinges on the credibility of witnesses. Appellant contends that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because there were facts and circumstances that the court a quo did not consider in his favor and that the evidence presented by the prosecution is flimsy and unreliable. In this connection, it bears emphasis that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court unless some facts and circumstances may have been overlooked that may otherwise affect the result of the case. For, it is the peculiar province of the trial court to determine the credibility of the witness because of its superior advantage in observing the conduct and demean