4. People v Honor G.R. No. 175945. April 7, 2009
The other accused, Garjas, testified that Honor left
Facts:
1. Lolito Honor and Alberto Garjas was found guilty by the RTC
of the crime of murder by killing Henry Argallon and Nestor
Nodalo and frustrated murder of Randy Autida
2. The prosecution presented eyewitness Rey Panlubasan
a farm worker of sugar plantation. He testified that
the victims worked under his supervision and after
receiving their wages, they went to a small tavern
the group of the victim, the eyewitness included,
occupied the 1st table while another group of 4
individual whom he later recognized as the accused
herein occupied the 2nd table. Only 2 groups were
having a drinking spree.
after consuming 1 1/2 gallon of tuba and at around 9pm,
one of the victims (Nestor Nolado) dropped a bottle of
Mallorca near the table of the accused
the groups of the accused then stared at them angrily
the victims group left the bar but the eyewitness
(Panlubusan) testified that he saw the group of the
accused leave and follow them
when the accused were only 1 meter apart, the group of
the accused suddenly attacked them
he said there was sufficient electric light in the street for
him to identify the assailants as the same group who
drank & occupied the other table at the tavern.
he testified that Honor and Garjas were the ones who
stabbed the victims
3. The prosecution also presented Dr. Jesus Castro who was
the attending physician at the Ormoc District Hospital. He
testified that both the victims Argallon and Nodalo died due
to cardio-pulmonary arrest since the stab wounds
penetrated their chest cavity.
4. The prosecution also presented SPO4 Rodrigo Sano,
the police officer who appended the accused and brought
them to the police station where they were identified as the
ones who stabbed the victims.
5. While the accused, Honor, testified that the only stayed
for 15 minutes and he cant recall if there was a group of
people in the tavern since he was only there for a short
time. The accuseds wife also testified that his husband
arrived at their home around 8:30pm (9pm allegedly
nangyari ung incident)
6.
early, the dropping of the Mallorca bother and that he
recognized the eyewitness as part of the group of the victim.
He confirmed the place was well illuminated, and this it was
their other companions (Suralta & Tumampo) who attacked
& stabbed the victims and that despite seeing the stabbing
done, he did not report the incident since he didnt want to
get involved.
7. RTC: Found the accused guilty and ruled that the testimony
of Garjas(accused) confirmed the testimony of the
prosecutionss eyewitness and that the testimonies of Honor
and his wife were self-serving, specious and made up
8. CA: Affirmed
Defendants argue that the RTC & CA erred in giving full
faith & credence to the testimony of the lone eyewitness
Rey Panlubasan despite its material inconsistencies.
In Panlubans direct testimony he stated that both Honor &
Garjas stabbed the victim but during the cross-examination,
he pointed only to Honor as the one who stabbed the victim.
Panblusans reaction during the startling & frightening
incident was inconsistent with the usual reaction of the
persons in similar situations, since he didnt run away during
the stabbing incident but opted to stay with the victim
Also argued that although alibi is a weak defense & cant
prevail over positive identification of the accused, when the
identification of the accused in inconclusive, alibi assumes
important and although alibi is not always deserving credit,
there are times when accused has no other possible defense
for what could really be the truth as to his whereabouts.
Solicitor General contends: that the trial courts assessment of
the credibility of the witness is entitled great weight. The
discrepancy in the testimony of the eyewitness as to who stabbed
whom doesnt automatically cast doubt on the identity of the
assailants since conspiracy was alleged in the information and each
of the accused is liable not only for his own act but also for the act
of the other. And that the testimony of the eyewitness was
corroborated by other evidence (physicians testimony as to the
nature & location of the wounds)
ISSUE: Should the testimony of the eyewitness be given credence?
YES
HELD:
Findings of facts and assessment of CREDIBILITY of
witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of
its unique position of having observed the witnesses
deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is
denied to the appellate courts.
When the credibility of the witnesses is at issue, appellate
courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court, the
latter being in a better position to decide the question,
having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment
and manner of testifying during the trial UNLESS certain
facts of substance and value had been overlooked,
misunderstood or misappreciated which, if considered,
might affect the results of the case.
Minor variances in the details of a witness account, more
frequently than not, are badges of truth rather than indicia of
falsehood and they often bolster the probative value of the
testimony.
Indeed, even the most candid witnesses oftentimes make
mistakes and would fall into confused statements, and at
times, far from eroding the effectiveness of the evidence,
such lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity.
If it appears that the same witness has not willfully
perverted the truth, as may be gleaned from the tenor of his
testimony and the conclusion of the trial judge regarding his
demeanor and behavior on the witness stand, his testimony
on material points may be accepted.
In this case, Panlubasans testimony positively points to the
accused as the ones who stabbed the victims. At the time of the
incident, the witness may have been under the influence of
liquor; nonetheless, nothing in his testimony and conduct
during the trial appears to suggest total erosion of his
mental faculties that would negate his identification of the
accused.