FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234039. June 6, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CONRADO CUSTUNA y CAPACITE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 6, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234039 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONRADO CUSTUNA y CAPACITE, Accused-Appellant.) — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the appeal from the decision 1 promulgated on December 6, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 05360 for failure of the accused-appellant to prove that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed reversible error in affirming the decision 2 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, Manila in Criminal Case No. 08-265575 finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Herein accused-appellant maintains his innocence and argues that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, Amir, was inherently unreliable considering his nonchalant attitude during the trial; that Amir's testimony was replete with improbabilities; and that the prosecution failed to prove treachery as to his supposed preparation to insure the execution of his plan to kill the victim. HTcADC
The trial courts' evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal considering that the trial court is in a better position to decide such question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Its findings on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the consequent findings of fact must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. 3
We fail to find herein any reason to doubt the lower court's assessment of Amir's credibility. He positively identified the accused-appellant as part of the group that had a verbal altercation with the group of the deceased and that he (accused-appellant) stabbed the victim.
The Court also rejects the denial and alibi raised by the accused considering that such defenses are self-serving and can easily be fabricated. The positive identification of the assailant, were categorical and consistent, and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over a denial. Denial being negative evidence which is self-serving in nature, cannot prevail over the positive identification of prosecution witnesses. 4
As regards the presence of treachery, We are convinced that it attended the killing of the victim.
Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 5 For treachery to avail, the following elements must be present: (1) The employment of means, method, or manner of execution which will ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliating acts on the part of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) Deliberate or conscious adoption of such means, method, or manner of execution. 6 The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on the unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims. 7 CAIHTE
In here, the prosecution had established through the testimony of Amir, that upon leaving the bar, their group was suddenly attacked by the accused-appellant and his companion; that the unknown companion held the victim when the accused-appellant stabbed the latter; that the companion of the accused-appellant appeared dumb-struck by the suddenness of the attack. The suddenness of the attack as well as the manner in which the plan was executed was directed to ensure the effective execution of slaying the victim. In sum, the courts a quo did not err in appreciating the circumstance of treachery.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS the December 6, 2016 decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 05360.
SO ORDERED."Carandang, J., no part due to prior participation in the Court of Appeals; Hernando, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated April 1, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and concurred by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez.
2. CA rollo, pp. 35-39; penned by Presiding Judge Amor A. Reyes.
3.People v. Bensing, G.R. No. 138989, September 17, 2002, 389 SCRA 182, 190.
4.Medina, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 161308, January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 311, 322-323.
5. Article 14, par. 16, Revised Penal Code.
6.Cirera v. People, G.R. No. 181843, July 14, 2014, 730 SCRA 27, 47.
7.People v. Bugarin, G.R. No. 224900, March 15, 2017, 820 SCRA 603, 617.