Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40445:g-r-no-125006-august-31,-2000-people-of-the-phil-v-mario-lacbayan,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:21:28+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIO LACBAYAN y LADERAS and ROBERTO LACBAYAN y LADERAS, Accused-Appellants.
Ignoring the pleas of Yonson, Mario shot him with his gun. While Yonson lay prostrate on the ground, Mario and his brother, Roberto, peppered Yonson with bullets. They stopped after making sure that their victim was already dead.
Esmeralda Sioco, another prosecution eyewitness, corroborated the above account of Angelina Verano.
I.	THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE, INCONSISTENT IF NOT CONFLICTING TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES RELATIVE TO THE INCIDENT IN QUESTION.
II.	THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING EXCULPATORY WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE.
Basically, Accused-appellants assail the credibility of the prosecution witnesses by pointing out alleged inconsistencies, particularly in the testimony of Angelina Verano. Upon closer scrutiny, however, it readily appears that the inconsistencies refer to minor and irrelevant details of the case, to wit: (a) whether Verona’s husband was inside their house at the time of the shooting incident; (b) whether the victim’s body was taken from the scene of the crime one hour later or a day after; (c) whether Angelina Verano knew of the precise place where the body of Yonson was dumped by his assailants; and (d) whether her children were inside their house during the shooting incident. These so-called inconsistencies are too immaterial to affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there may be some details which one witness may notice while the other may not observe or remember. 6 In fact, jurisprudence even warns against a perfect dovetailing of narration by different witnesses as it could mean that their testimonies were prefabricated and rehearsed. 7 Finally, a careful examination of the evidence on record shows that while the prosecution witnesses differ in their narration of trivial details like those mentioned on appeal, they did not waver in their identification of the accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.
We have consistently ruled that the trial court judge is the best person to evaluate the veracity of a witness’s testimony as he is in the best position to see the demeanor, actuation and countenance of a witness. Hence, this Court generally does not disturb the findings of the trial court except in cases where the judge acted arbitrarily. 8 Finding no arbitrariness on the part of the trial court judge in the case at bar, we see no reason to disturb his conclusions.
Furthermore, we find no irregularity in the behavior of Angelina Verona who professed fear and remained hidden behind the bushes until the killing was completed. Time and again, this Court has ruled that human reaction in the face of peril and traumatic incident is not predictable. 9 Hence, Accused-appellants’ contention, that the credibility of the eyewitness, Angelina Verona, is suspect because she did not scamper away in fear at the sight of the gruesome crime, is untenable.
We likewise agree with the trial court that the qualifying aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing. There is abuse of superior strength when the offenders took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. 10 Accused-appellants not only took advantage of their superiority in number, they were likewise armed with guns. Yonson, on the other hand, was unarmed and defenseless. Accused-appellant Mario Lacbayan shot the unsuspecting Yonson, hitting him on the temple. While Yonson was lying defenselessly on the ground, the two accused-appellants, Mario and Roberto Lacbayan, pumped more bullets into Yonson’s body, ensuring his death. Before they left, they nudged him with their feet to determine whether he was still alive. After ascertaining that their victim was dead, they dragged him towards the neighborhood dumpsite and deposited him there like garbage.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96 finding accused-appellants Mario and Roberto Lacbayan guilty of murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED. Both accused-appellants are likewise held solidarily liable to pay the heirs of Procopio Yonson P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P240,000.00 for lost earnings, P30,069.00 as actual damages, P100,000.00 as moral damages with interest plus cost of the suit.
1.	Dated November 25, 1993, Records, p. 1.
7.	People v. Villagonzalo, Et Al., 238 SCRA 215 (1994).
8.	People v. Jamiro, 279 SCRA 290 (1997).
9.	People v. Sumallo, Et Al., G.R. No. 116737, May 24,1999; People v. Muyco, Et Al., G.R. No. 132252, April 27, 2000.
10.	People v. Butler, 120 SCRA 281 (1983).
12.	Revised Penal Code, Article 64 (1); People v. Cleopas, G.R. No. 121998, March 9, 2000; People v. Bitoon, Sr., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999, 309 SCRA 209, at 221.
15.	Asian Center for Career and Employment System and Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 131656. October 12, 1998.

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