SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232304. October 8, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENJAMIN DADA, JR., accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated08 October 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232304 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus BENJAMIN DADA, JR., 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 November 18, 2016 (Decision) of the Court of Appeals, Special Second Division (CA), in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08236. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Benjamin Dada, Jr. (Dada) is indeed guilty of the crime of 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 victim, 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. aScITE
Dada's claim that the eyewitness, Quirino Vuelta (Quirino), presented by the prosecution is not credible is without merit. The Supreme Court held that in resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, the Court is guided by the following principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower courts, unless there is a showing that it overlooked or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanors when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness. 5 Furthermore, the CA correctly ruled that the alleged gap in Quirino's testimony regarding who hacked the victim is inconsequential considering that he consistently pointed to Dada as the person who hacked the victim. It is also worth noting that Quirino cannot be mistaken in his positive identification of Dada since he has known the latter for a long time as they both live in the same barangay.
The CA also correctly ruled that Dada's defense of alibi must fail. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. 6 As admitted by Dada himself, Agaman Proper is only a 30-minute walk or 15-minute tricycle ride away from the house of Dada. Hence, it was not physically impossible for him to be present at the place where the crime was committed.
The CA was likewise correct in appreciating the existence of conspiracy since the simultaneous acts of Dada and his two other unidentified companions during the hacking disclosed unity of objective. Time and again, the Court has held that direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy for it may be deduced from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime charged, from which it may be indicated that there is a common purpose to commit the crime. 7 In the case at bar, two of the assailants held the hands of the victim while the third hacked him with a long bolo. Hence, it is apparent that Dada and his two companions had a common design to assail and disable their victim. DETACa
Finally, as correctly ruled by the CA, abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. Abuse of superior strength is considered whenever there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of in the commission of the crime. 8 For superior strength to aggravate a crime, it must be clearly shown that there was deliberate intent to take advantage of the same. 9 The act of the three assailants holding the defenseless victim down while being hacked shows a simultaneous attack purposely and deliberately done to employ excessive force against the victim. There was notorious inequality of forces between the lone weaponless victim and the three aggressors who had a weapon. Therefore, the CA correctly held that Dada is guilty of the crime of Murder.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated November 18, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08236 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on wellness leave) HEITAD
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-10. Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Leoncia R. Dimagiba 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 Tuguegarao City, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 14159.
5.Estioca v. People, 578 Phil. 853, 864 (2008).
6.People v. Hatsero, 713 Phil. 405, 413 (2013).
7.People v. Campos, 668 Phil. 315, 330 (2011).
8.People v. Quisayas, 731 Phil. 577, 596 (2014).
9.People v. Bello, 119 Phil. 558, 562 (1964) cited in People v. Lor, 217 Phil. 40, 56 (1984).