SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231957. June 19, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.NICANOR OSORIO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 231957 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus NICANOR OSORIO, 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 February 10, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00498. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Nicanor Osorio (Osorio) 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, 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 appreciation of the evidence by the RTC, 4 which the CA affirmed in toto. HTcADC
In this connection, the Court agrees with the CA that the testimony of eyewitness Eduardo Cordero is sufficient to establish the Osorio's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court quotes with approval the following disquisition of the CA:
As to the failure of the prosecution to present corroborative witness despite the fact that there were a lot of people around at the time of the incident, suffice it to say that such is of no moment. It is axiomatic that the testimonies of witnesses are weighed, not numbered, and the testimony of a single witness may support a conviction if found trustworthy and reliable. That the prosecution had only one eyewitness to implicate an accused hardly negates its cause. There is no law, which requires that the testimony of a single witness needs corroboration except where the law expressly mandates such corroboration. In the case at bench, even with just the singular testimony of Eduar[d]o, accused-appellant's criminal culpability was already overwhelmingly established beyond any tinge of doubt. Nothing else can speak so eloquently of his culpability than the unassailable fact that he was seen just a few meters away, and that he stabbed Alex Pasilan without any warning in the evening [of] May 15, 1999. 5
The Court likewise agrees with the CA that the crime committed was Murder as the killing was attended by treachery. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the person being attacked. 6 A swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim that insures its execution without risk to the assailant arising from the defense of his victim is an indication that treachery is present. 7 What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. 8
In the present case, it is clearly established that Osorio suddenly stabbed the victim — without warning or provocation — twice on the back while the latter was just eating balut in front of the barangay hall. Osorio then stabbed the victim one more time on the chest before he left. Thus, the mode of execution chosen by Osorio clearly showed that the victim had no chance to defend himself from the attack.
As the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery was sufficiently alleged and proved, the Court thus affirms Osorio's conviction for the crime of Murder. CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated February 10, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00498 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTO
Division Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-17. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with Associate Justices Pablito A. Perez and Gabriel T. Robeniol concurring.
2.People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055, 1064 (2017).
3.People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 241 (2007).
4. See Decision dated September 9, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, Branch 61 in Criminal Case No. 2000-2440, penned by Judge Henry D. Arles; CA rollo, pp. 142-157.
5.Rollo, pp. 14-15.
6.People v. Kalipayan, G.R. No. 229829, January 22, 2018.
7.Id.
8.Id.