THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234304. July 29, 2019.]
LARRY ABABAN y BATUNDA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 29, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234304(Larry Ababan y Batunda v. People of the Philippines). — The Court notes the Manifestation dated October 4, 2018 filed by petitioner Larry Ababan y Batunda (petitioner) stating that he shall no longer file a reply to comment on the petition for review on certiorari on the ground that his petition sufficiently argued his prayer for acquittal.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated August 4, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR No. 01252-MIN which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated October 22, 2014 in Criminal Case No. 17407. The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 14, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6539, otherwise known as the "Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972," as amended, for which he was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as minimum to twenty-five (25) years as maximum. Petitioner failed to show that in denying the appeal, the CA committed a reversible error wanting the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The CA was correct in giving credence to the positive identification of witness Julsnomeir Bajuyo (Bajuyo) over the accused's defenses of alibi and denial.
In People vs. Bugna, 1 quoting People vs. Caliso, 2 the Court explained that "[t]he test to determine the moral certainty of an identification [of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime] is its imperviousness to skepticism on account of its distinctiveness." Moreover, "[t]o achieve such distinctiveness, the identification evidence should encompass unique physical features or characteristics, like the face, the voice, the dentures, the distinguishing marks or tattoos on the body, fingerprints, DNA, or any other physical facts that set the individual apart from the rest of humanity." 3 Here, as correctly ruled by the CA, the apparent absence of the mole on petitioner's face is not conclusive considering Bajuyo's testimony that he was able to see the face and not just the distinguishing mole on the left face of the accused. Thus, the absence of the mole on the face of the accused is not fatal to the case for the prosecution.
Moreover, in People vs. Sabalones, 4 as cited in Avelino vs. People, 5 the Court explained that "the light from the stars or the moon, an oven, or a wick lamp or gasera can give ample illumination to enable a person to identify or recognize another" and that "the headlights of a car or a jeep are sufficient to enable eyewitnesses to identify appellants at the distance of 4 to 10 meters." Here, Bajuyo testified that he was about five meters away from the electric sodium bulb. Thus, there was sufficient illumination at the place and time of the carnapping incident which allowed Bajuyo to see the face of petitioner.
Lastly, the Court finds no reason to depart from the ruling of the RTC as affirmed by the CA that the testimony of witness Teresita Mayaki (Mayaki) was doubtful as it was too calibrated. The RTC ruled that it was impossible for Mayaki to watch every move of the petitioner considering that she was supposed to be the principal mourner in her husband's wake. In People v. Escobal, 6 the Court ruled that "the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence, its assessment of the probative weight thereof, and its conclusions anchored on such findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect by the appellate courts" because "the trial court is able to observe and monitor, at close range, the conduct, behavior and deportment of the witnesses as they testify." Moreover, "[t]he rule requires stricter adherence when the factual findings are sustained by the CA."
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 4, 2017 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Reyes, A., Jr., J., on wellness leave.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNGDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. G.R. No. 218255, April 11, 2018.
2. 675 Phil. 742, 756 (2011).
3.Id.
4. 356 Phil. 255, 293 (1998).
5. 714 Phil. 322, 331-332 (2013).
6. G.R. No. 206292, October 11, 2017, 842 SCRA 432, 453.