SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238606. October 10, 2018.]
ROY CANDOY AND RENE PEBRERO, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 October 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238606 — Roy Candoy and Rene Pebrero versus People of the Philippines
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated August 17, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated March 27, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39012, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for lack of merit and AFFIRM the CA Decision with MODIFICATION for failure to sufficiently show reversible error that would warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Essentially, petitioners hinge their appeal on alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities marring the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. Petitioners further argue that the evidence failed to establish conspiracy and the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. ATICcS
The Court stresses at the outset that issues that are factual and evidentiary in nature are outside the Court's scope of review in Rule 45 petitions. In this regard, it is settled that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a task most properly within the domain of trial courts due to the unique opportunity afforded them to observe the witnesses when placed on the stand. 3 While questions of fact have been entertained by the Court in justifiable circumstances, petitioners failed to establish that the instant case falls within the allowable exceptions. Hence, not being a trier of facts but of law, the Court must necessarily defer to the concurrent findings of fact of the CA and the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 105. 4
In any case, after reviewing the petition and its annexes, the Court finds that the CA committed no reversible error in finding petitioners guilty of Attempted Murder.
As correctly observed by the CA, petitioners' prior and simultaneous acts unquestionably indicate a unity of purpose between his co-accused in the execution of an unlawful objective. Weighed against the self-serving and uncorroborated testimonies of petitioners, the positive testimonies of the witnesses, as confirmed by the physical evidence, clearly establish beyond reasonable doubt that petitioners and their co-accused were driven by a common objective of killing the private complainant and that they had taken advantage of their number in their means of attack. ETHIDa
However, anent the award of damages, considering that the crime committed is Attempted Murder, the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are accordingly modified to P25,000.00 each, following recent jurisprudence. 5
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on wellness leave)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 39-54. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with Associate Justices Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting concurring.
2.Id. at 56-57. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting concurring.
3. See People v. Gahi, 727 Phil. 642, 658 (2014).
4. See Miro v. Vda. de Erederos, 721 Phil. 772, 785-786 (2013).
5.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).