FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198011. November 21, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.GILBERTO TAMBIO y BARBA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 21, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198011 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GILBERTO TAMBIO y BARBA, Accused-Appellant.) — We dismiss this appeal taken from the decision promulgated on January 28, 2011, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, in Manila finding accused-appellant Gilberto Tambio y Barba guilty beyond reasonable doubt of separate crimes of robbery under Article 293, and robbery with homicide under Article 294, both of the Revised Penal Code. 2
In affirming the accused-appellant's convictions, the CA ruled that co-accused Jesus Sampaga had been correctly discharged as a state witness; 3 that Sampaga was the least guilty among the accused taking into account the extent of his participation in the commission of the two crimes; 4 that Sampaga's testimony was absolutely necessary because only he could identify the perpetrators of the crimes; 5 and that the discharge of an accused as a state witness was a factual matter best left to the sound discretion of the trial court. 6 ScHADI
The CA opined that the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crimes charged had been proved beyond reasonable doubt; 7 that the Prosecution established all the elements of robbery as defined and penalized under Article 293 and under paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code; 8 that there was no need to determine the individual liability of each of the perpetrators because Sampaga's testimony clearly established the existence of the conspiracy among them; 9 that each of the co-conspirators became responsible for everything done by the other co-conspirators; 10 that the accused-appellant's assertions that the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses were marred with inconsistencies were unfounded, 11 inasmuch as the supposed inconsistencies were too trivial and insignificant as to negate the credibility of the witnesses; 12 and that his excuse that he did not personally know his co-accused did not defeat the fact that the Prosecution competently established their personal relationships. 13
We find no error on the part of the CA.
First of all, the discharge of an accused as a state witness is an issue that is highly factual in nature; hence, the Court does not review the same because it does not generally interfere with the trial court's determination thereof. 14
Secondly, we uphold the assessment of Sampaga's credibility considering that the grounds for impeaching such assessment were not sufficient. We have set the following guidelines by which to assess the credibility of witnesses whenever the same is put in issue, to wit:
First, the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC's evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses.
Second, absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the RTC's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded. aICcHA
And third, the rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC. 15
With the RTC's appreciation of the testimonies given by the Prosecution's witnesses having been upheld by the CA, the Court has no reason to disturb the same. Such appreciation is affirmed.
And, thirdly, the CA correctly held that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the Prosecution's witnesses were only trivial and did not affect the determination of the guilt of the accused-appellant. 16 It is settled, indeed, that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, when referring only to minor details, do not impair the credibility of witnesses. 17
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal; and AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on January 28, 2011, with costs of suit to be paid by the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED."Bersamin, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr.
2. CA rollo, pp. 60-74; penned by Presiding Judge Manuel M. Barrios.
3.Rollo, p. 12.
4.Id. at 12.
5.Id. at 12.
6.Id. at 12-13.
7.Id. at 13.
8.Id. at 14.
9.Id. at 14.
10.Id. at 15.
11.Id. at 15.
12.Id. at 16.
13.Id. at 16.
14.Yu v. The Honorable Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Branch 18, G.R. No. 142848, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 101, 116.
15.People v. Abat, G.R. No. 202704, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 557, 564.
16.Rollo, p. 16.
17.People v. Solmoro, G.R. No. 139187-94, November 27, 2002, 393 SCRA 100, 108.