Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50141:gr-166241-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:36:40+00:00

Document:
RUBEN LASCANO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
In this Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Ruben Lascano seeks the reversal of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals that affirmed the decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Caloocan City, Branch 128 finding him guilty of the crime of homicide.
Petitioner was initially charged3 as a co-conspirator, together with Eduardo Altabano (Eduardo), Benjamin Caro (Benjamin), Cynthia Caro (Cynthia) and Corazon Lascano (Corazon), with the crime of murder perpetrated against Arnold Fernandez (Fernandez).4 He absconded and remained at large while his co-accused were on trial. But when the case was submitted for decision, he surfaced5 and forthwith underwent a separate trial for the same charge6 after his arrest.
For his defense, petitioner relied on denial and alibi. He testified that coming home from work at 6:00 in the evening on the date in question, he was informed by his wife, Corazon, that she had had an altercation with Fernandez. They proceeded to the police station to have the incident recorded in the police blotter, after which he went back to his house, packed his belongings, and drove to the residence of his employer, Renato Alipio. At the time of the incident, he and Alipio, were already on board a Nelbusco bus en route to Solano, Nueva Vizcaya from which place they would proceed to Isabela to verify the registration of a certain car. The bus, according to petitioner, departed from the terminal at 7:45 in the evening and arrived at the place of destination at 3:00 the following morning. The two then located the residence of one T/Sgt. Jean Dela Cruz who would accompany them to Isabela.21 Petitioner produced in court two (2) bus tickets22 issued by Nelbusco.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, finding accused Ruben Lascano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Six (6) years and One (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to Twelve (12) years and One (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. He is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of the offended party the amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages. The period of his preventive detention during trial shall be credited in his favor.
The City Warden of Caloocan City is hereby ordered to bring the accused Ruben Lascano to the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City for the Service of his sentence.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed with modification. Applying the indeterminate sentence law, the appellant Ruben Lascano is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal,as maximum. The period of his preventive detention during trial is credited in his favor.
Accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of the offended party in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos.
As found by the courts below, the evidence for the prosecution more than meets the requisite evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner's challenge of the decisions a quo is starkly puerile.
This Court is not the proper forum from which to secure a re-evaluation of factual issues, except only where the factual findings of the trial court do not find support in the evidence on record or where the judgment appealed from was based on a misapprehension of facts.31 None of the exceptions obtains in this case, thus; we find no compelling reason to depart from the rule.
The testimonies of Ibacuado and Mallari in open court identifying petitioner as the one who fired the gun at Fernandez were categorical, coherent, and consistent, devoid of any suspicious implausibility of a character likely to discredit the same. Notably, it was not shown that the said witnesses were harboring ill motives against petitioner that might have urged them to hurl false accusations against the latter. This only serves to strengthen the presumption that they were not so moved to testify falsely and thereby entitles their testimonies to full weight and credit. The unavoidable conclusion is that the identification made of petitioner by Ibacuado and Mallari an affirmative testimonies no doubt must prevail over the negative and self-serving alibi of the defense. Suffice it to say that the strength of an affirmative testimony is far greater than a negative one, especially when it proceeds from a credible witness.42 Thus, no reversible error was committed by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals in rejecting the defense of alibi advanced by petitioner when the latter's identity has already been sufficiently established.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Ynares-Santiago**, Carpio***, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Quisumbing*, J., on official leave.
* On Official Leave.** Designated pursuant to Adm. Circular No. 75-2007, par. 7.*** Acting Chairperson.
1 CA rollo, pp. 152-157. Promulgated on 8 July 2004 and penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok with Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Danilo B. Pine concurring.
2 Records, Vol. I, pp. 512-521. Dated 11 March 2003 and penned by Judge Silvestre H. Bello, Jr.
3 The criminal information was filed with the RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 121 presided by Judge Adoracion Angeles.
4 See People v. Eduardo Altabano, Benjamin Caro, Cynthia Altabano, Corazon Lascano and Ruben Lascano, G.R. No. 121344, 29 October 1999, 317 SCRA 708.
5 Records, Vol. I, p. 513.
6 The information was filed with the same RTC Branch (Caloocan City, Branch 121), but in view of the judgment of conviction rendered by the said court in the previous case of People v. Altabano, petitioner filed a petition for inhibition against the judge. The petition was granted and Judge Angeles ordered that the records of the present case be forwarded to the Office of the Executive Judge for re-raffle. Accordingly, the case was re-raffled to Branch 126 but petitioner moved for another raffle in view of the retirement of Presiding Judge Oscar Payawal of Branch 126. The case was then re-raffled to Branch 122, presided by Judge Modesto Juanson. Finally, in view of Supreme Court Circular No. 96 dated 3 May 1996, the case was raffled to Branch 128, presided by Judge Silvestre Bello, Jr. It was docketed as Criminal Case No. C-47820.
7 Records, Vol. I, p. 348.
The prosecution in that case had established that Lascano was the person who shot the victim. The defense of Eduardo and Benjamin was that they could not be held liable for the shooting inasmuch as they did not agree to kill the victim, and the most that they could be liable for was physical injuries only. However, on account of the finding of conspiracy that attended the commission of the crime, Eduardo and Benjamin were found guilty of homicide. See People v. Altabano, et al., supra note 4.
That on or about the 31st day of August 1994, in Kalookan City, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one ARNOLD FERNANDEZ Y MCOLL, with the use of a gun, hitting the latter on the left breast, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries, which injuries ultimately caused his death.
14 CA rollo, p. 164.
15 TSN, 8 June 1995, pp. 6, 22.
17 Id. at 22-26; TSN, 8 September 1997, pp. 6-9.
18 TSN, 26 May 1998, pp. 8-15.
19 TSN, 8 June 1995, pp. 5, 22-23.
21 TSN, 25 October 2001, pp. 9-18.
22 Records, Vol. I, p. 494. Ticket Nos. 016171 and 016172.
23 TSN, 13 February 2001, pp. 11-13.
24 Records, Vol. I, p. 521.
27 People v. De Leon, 428 Phil. 556, 572 (2002); People v. Sanidad, 450 Phil. 449, 458 (2003); People v. Espero, 400 Phil. 461, 624 (2000).
28 People v. Penaso, 383 Phil. 200, 208 (2000).
29 Asuncion v. Court of Appeals, 460 Phil. 290, 296-297 (2003); People v. Orcula, Sr., 390 Phil. 427, 444-445 (2000).
30 People v. Manalili, 355 Phil. 652, 670 (1998).
31 Siccuan v. People, G.R. No. 133709, 28 April 2005, 457 SCRA 458, 463.
32 TSN, 19 January 1998, pp. 10-11.
34 TSN, 6 December 1994, p. 4.
36 People v. Sanidad, supra note 27.
37 People v. Cirilo, 400 Phil. 495, 506 (2000).
38 People v. Emoy, 395 Phil. 371, 383 (2000); People v. De Leon, 428 Phil. 556, 575 (2000); People v. Penaso, supra note 28, at 210.
39 People v. Sanidad, supra note 27, at 461; People v. De Leon, supra; People v. Emoy, supra; People v. Manguera, 446 Phil. 808, 820-821 (2003); People v. Drew, 422 Phil. 614, 624-625 (2001).
40 People v. Visperas, Jr., 443 Phil. 164, 175 (2003).
41 People v. Cirilo, supra note 37, at 508.
42 People v. Daraman, 355 Phil. 454, 473 (1998).
43 TSN, 5 December 1994, pp. 3-5.
44 CA rollo, p. 155.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.