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