SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233246. October 17, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOMAR SARDALLA CUARTO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 17 October 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233246 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, versus JOMAR SARDALLA CUARTO,accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court finds no error committed in the Decision 1 dated March 10, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01467-MIN. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Jomar Sardalla Cuarto (Cuarto) is indeed guilty of the crimes of Murder and Attempted Murder. The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the CA, there being no supplemental briefs filed, were sufficiently addressed and correctly ruled upon by the CA.
It is well-settled that in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court. 2 Thus, when the case pivots on the issue of the credibility of the witnesses, the findings of the trial courts necessarily carry great weight and respect as they are afforded the unique opportunity to ascertain the demeanor and sincerity of witnesses during trial. 3 Here, after examining the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to vacate the RTC's 4 appreciation of the evidence, which was affirmed in toto by the CA.
In the same vein, Cuarto's defenses of alibi and denial cannot outweigh the positive and categorical testimonies of the witnesses, particularly of eyewitness Elisa 5 Fuerzas, that it was Cuarto who shot her and the deceased Nicolas Hornales numerous times. The Court has oft pronounced that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has the ring of truth on the one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 6
Further, the continuing case law is that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence. 7
In the present case, as the RTC pointed out, the residence of Samuelito Espuerta, where Cuarto was supposedly in at the time of the shooting incident, was merely 450 meters away from the scene of the crime. Hence, it was not impossible for him to be at the place of the crime at the time it happened.
Finally, the Court agrees with the RTC and the CA that the crimes committed were Murder and Attempted Murder because the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present. As the CA correctly held:
To emphasize, victim Hornales was caught unaware that an attack was forthcoming. The record shows that Hornales together with his live-in partner, Elisa, came from their farm. While on their way home passing through La Union Elementary School, accused-appellant suddenly, unexpectedly, and without any warning shot Hornales from behind several times, using a long firearm, while the latter was carrying on his back a sack containing camote crops. The record shows that Hornales' body sustained six (6) bullet wounds, which only indicates that he was defenseless at the time of the attack. Accused-appellant, therefore, employed a means of attack without risk to himself which might have arisen from any defensive or retaliatory act on the part of Hornales. With a firearm as the means of execution, it cannot be denied that the mode of attack was deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused-appellant. 8
The Court thus affirms the conviction of Cuarto.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated March 10, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01467-MIN, finding accused-appellant Jomar Sardalla Cuarto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Murder and Attempted Murder is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-32. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas concurring.
2.People v. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 469, 478.
3.People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 247 (2007).
4. Regional Trial Court of Lianga, Surigao del Sur, Branch 28 in Crim. Case Nos. L-2445 and L-2446.
5. Also spelled as "Liza" and "Eliza" in some parts of the records.
6.People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 527 (2013).
7.People v. Desalisa, 451 Phil. 869, 876 (2003).
8.Rollo, p. 26.