Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82470:56344&catid=1575&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:41:06+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 191063, October 09, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALDRIN M. GALICIA, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALDRIN M. GALICIA, Accused-Appellant.
On appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03143 promulgated on 14 November 2008, which affirmed with modification the 5 November 2007 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 58, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder in Criminal Case No. 05-1602.
That on or about 11:45 in the morning of June 10, 2004, at N. Gonzales St., cor. F. Platon St., Barangay II, Poblacion, Tanauan City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused conspiring and confederating and mutually helping one another, with treachery and evident premeditation, one of the accused JUN ASUNCION y NOBERO, armed with a firearm, and with deliberate intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unalwfully and feloniously in an unexpected manner, shot Judge Voltaire Rosales, hitting the latter on his head and neck thus causing fatal injuries which resulted to the instantaneous death of said Judge Rosales. Said accused escaped through the use of a motorcycle then driven by the accused ALDRIN GALICIA y MICOSA.
Upon arraignment, Galicia pleaded not guilty5 to the charge. On the other hand, accused Jun Asuncion remained at large.
At about 11:45 a.m. of June 10, 2004, Judge Voltaire Rosales was killed while on board his Pajero van at N. Gonzales St. Corner F. Platon St., Barangay II, Poblacion, Tanauan, Batangas. At about one o’ clock of the same day, a team of SOCO Investigators from PNP Region 4, Canlubang, Laguna, arrived at the scene of the crime and conducted an investigation. The PNP-SOCO’s investigation revealed that the “assailants (of Judge Voltaire Rosales) were wearing “black bonnets” (Exh. “A”). Nobody questioned by the police investigators could identify the assailants.
On January 24, 2005, seven months after the incident, an Information for Murder was filed against Galicia and one Jun Asuncion in the Regional Trial Court, Tanauan City, Batangas.
Having been arrested, Galicia filed an Application For Bail on the ground that the Prosecution’s evidence against him is not strong.
After hearing, the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 145, thru Judge Cesar Santamaria, denied the application for bail.
Upon motion for inhibition filed by Galicia, the case was re-raffled and assigned to Branch 58 of the same Regional Trial Court, which conducted the trial and convicted Galicia in its Decision subject of the appeal.
The prosecution presented as witnesses the following PNP SOCO Investigators, namely: Police Supt. Ligaya Sim Cabal of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory, Calamba City, Laguna; Gregorio de Guzman, Chief Inspector and Team Leader of the SOCO team dispatched to the crime scene; Jerome Quiasao, Chief Forensic Photographer and Operating Officer, PNP Regional Crime Laboratory, Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba, Laguna; and Jupri Delantar, the forensic chemical officer of the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory. The Prosecution also presented Antonio Vertido, medico-legal officer of the NBI, Southern Tagalog Region and two civilians, namely: [Flores] and [Enriquez].
The medico-legal officer and the PNP-SOCO Investigators testified on post-crime matters. Civilian witnesses [Flores] and [Enriquez], who claimed to be within the area where the crime was committed, testified on facts which they allegedly and purportedly observed.
On the other hand, Galicia presented himself and the following as his witnesses, namely: Lourdes Rosales, Teresita Mabilangan-Lucido and Katherine Sison Ramilo.
In essence, the defense witnesses testified that Galicia could not have committed the crime charged because on the day and time of the incident, he was attending the wake of his grandfather Armando Lucido in Brgy. Pantay Matanda, Tanauan City, who testified that Armando Lucido died on June 7, 2004 and was in state at his house in Pantay Matanda, Tanauan City from June 8, 2004 until June 11, 2004 when his remains were brought to Cabanatuan City, where his wife and children reside, for final interment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court renders judgment finding the accused ALDRIN GALICIA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Consequently, he is hereby ordered to indemnify the victim the amount of Php50,000.00 as civil damages.
Considering that the Court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of accused Jun Asuncion who has remained at large, let an alias warrant of arrest be issued against him.
Aggrieved, Galicia assailed the decision on appeal. The CA sustained the trial court’s finding and found the same to be in order.
The appellant now seeks recourse in this Court maintaining the issues raised before the CA as reversible errors committed by the court a quo in giving credence to the testimonies of Flores and Enriquez despite serious contradictions and material inconsistencies, while disregarding or ignoring the testimony of defense witness Barangay Chairwoman Lourdes Rosales.
We find the appeal bereft of merit.
Time and again, we have ruled that factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.9 In numerous instances, this Court observes restraint in interfering with the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility, absent any indication or showing that the trial court overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion, more so, when the CA sustained such assessment, as in this case, where it affirmed the trial court’s findings of fact, the veracity of the testimonies of the witnesses, the determination of physical evidence and conclusions.
As exception to the rule, the only time a reviewing court is not bound by the trial court’s assessment of credibility arises upon a showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that was overlooked which, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case.10 With this exception as basis we reviewed the records for any indication of arbitrariness or clear oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight that can warrant a reversal of the findings of the courts a quo. We found none.
She also declared in court that the two assailants were wearing helmets. The portion of the helmet going down the right and left sides of their faces to the chin measured two inches wide, thereby the impossibility of recognizing the face.
In his Sinumpaang Salaysay, [Enriquez] declared that “the one who was driving the motorcycle (who he later pointed to as “Galicia”) had a slim body, brown complexion, 5’7” or 5’8” in height, and wearing black jacket and camouflaged pants.
[Enriquez] also declared that the one driving the motorcycle is 5’7” or 5’8” in height. On cross-examination, however, he testified that the driver remained sitting and that he never alighted from the motorcycle.
Given all these observations, Galicia insists that either the prosecution has no evidence at all against him or its evidence is weak and insufficient to convict him beyond reasonable doubt.
We are not swayed. A judicious review and examination of the entire record of the instant case provide compelling reason to affirm Galicia’s conviction.
At the outset, let it be emphasized that the issue being raised is one of credibility which is naturally factual – a domain of the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the deportment and manner of the witnesses as they testified13 whose finding is, as such, entitled to respect. And we do not consider the accused’s observations as relevant facts of substance which can affect the result of the case.
Deciding on the merit of the submitted inconsistencies between the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies and affidavits, we reiterate our ruling in People v. Villadares,14 where we held that discrepancies and/or inconsistencies between a witness’ affidavit and testimony do not necessarily impair his credibility as affidavits are taken ex parte and are often incomplete or inaccurate for lack or absence of searching inquiries by the investigating officer. What is important is, in the over-all analysis of the case, the trial court’s findings and conclusions are duly supported by the evidence on record.
As we have observed, the testimonies of Flores and Enriquez when taken together, would point to the culpability of Galicia and his cohort as the perpetrators in the killing of Judge Voltaire Rosales. It may be true that Flores did not witness the actual shooting as she recounted only the time immediately prior to and after the shooting transpired. However, such missing detail as to the actual shooting was supplied by state witness Enriquez who testified in a straightforward manner how Galicia and his co-accused fired upon the Pajero.
We entertain no doubt as to the culpability of Galicia and his co-accused even though Flores did not see the actual shooting. Note that, she stated in a categorical manner that after she heard the gunshots, she looked out of the window and saw the two men riding in the motorcycle she saw earlier, who were speeding away from the Pajero.18 She was situated barely 7 to 10 meters from where the incident happened at the corner of Platon and N. Gonzales Streets,19 the same location where prosecution witness Enriquez saw the actual shooting.
The testimonial accounts of the prosecution witnesses jibed with the physical evidence and the medico-legal report. Dr. Antonio Vertido who conducted the autopsy20 on Judge Rosales’ body certified that the cause of death was the gunshot wounds sustained at the head and the area of the neck and jaw.
The variance in the testimonies of Flores and Enriquez, in some minor details, is considered natural. As inconsequential is the initial hesitation and/or failure of witness Flores to divulge to Barangay Chairwoman Rosales what she had witnessed. What is significant is that the testimonies are categorical on material aspects, specifically on the positive identification of Galicia as the person responsible for the crime.
We also consider in this case that no ill motive was found on the part of the witnesses that could have impelled them to testify against Galicia. In People v. Nogra,22 we ruled that where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, their positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand, under the solemnity of an oath, deserve full faith and credence. It necessarily prevails over alibi and denial, especially when neither alibi nor denial is substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
We agree with the lower courts that treachery attended the killing of Judge Rosales. The attack, as testified to by the prosecution witnesses, was sudden and unexpected. The victim had no inkling that an attack was forthcoming and had no opportunity to put up any defense.
The crime of murder qualified by treachery is penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with reclusion perpetua to death. For the death of Judge Voltaire Rosales, given the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation that attended the commission of the crime, the penalty of death should have been meted against Galicia. However, due to the dictates of Republic Act No. 934625 prohibiting its imposition, the lower courts correctly sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua only.
1 CA rollo, pp. 155-175; Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang concurring.
3 Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-3.
6 CA rollo, pp. 133-135; Appellee’s Brief.
7 Id. at 66-68; Brief for Accused-Appellant.
9 People v. Barde, G.R. No. 183094, 22 September 2010, 631 SCRA 187, 209.
10People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 175602, 18 January 2012, 663 SCRA 272, 282 citing People v. Darilay, G.R. Nos. 139751-752, 26 January 2004, 421 SCRA 45, 54.
11 CA rollo, pp. 67-71.
13People v. Meris, 385 Phil. 667, 683 (2000).
14 406 Phil. 530, 540 (2001).
15 TSN, 24 November 2005, pp. 9-11.
17 Id. at 65-66 and TSN 8 December 2005, pp. 5-6.
18 TSN 24 November 2005, pp. 20-22.
21People v. Villadares, supra note at 14 at 537 citing People v. Cortes, G.R. No. 129693, 24 January 2000, 323 SCRA 131.
22 G.R No. 170834, 29 August 2008, 563 SCRA 723, 735.
23People v. Sia, 421 Phil. 784, 800 (2001).
24 See Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. 1, 1976 ed., page 341 citing cases. See also People v. Dueno, 179 Phil. 14, 29 (1979).
25 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines approved on 24 June 2006.
26 People v. Halil Gambao, et al., G.R. No. 172707, 1 October 2013.
27 People v. Cabote, 420 Phil. 867, 879 (2001).
29 People v. Campos, G.R. No. 176061, 4 July 2011, 653 SCRA 99, 116 citing People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 174371, 11 December 2008, 573 SCRA 708, 721-722.

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