PEOPLE v. DAYADAY

People of the Philippines Vs. Roque Dayaday y Dagooc

G.R. No. 213224

January 16, 2017

Facts:

On the evening of October 27, 2005 at about 10 o'clock, Alex and his father, Basilio Gallenero (Basilio), were walking home along the road in Barrio 3, Norala, South Cotabato6 after attending a wedding celebration at the house of Rodolfo Dayaday, when suddenly, Roque shot the victim in the back four (4) times, successively. Alex easily recognized Roque as the assailant because the place was well lit and he was just about ten (10) meters away from Roque when the latter fired his gun.  For fear of his life, Alex ran away from the place of incident. He reported the incident to his uncle Petring Pinuela and to the police officers of Norala. Finding the positive testimony of Alex credible as against Roque's defense of alibi, the RTC convicted Roque of the crime of murder and sentenced him accordingly.

Roque appealed to the CA.

The CA concurred with the RTC's finding on Alex's credibility and dismissed the alleged inconsistencies in his testimony. Moreover, the CA found Roque's defense of alibi very flimsy. According to the CA, while the defense witnesses claimed that Roque was cooking at the time of the commission, it was not physically impossible for Roque to be at the scene of the crime because the place where he was allegedly cooking was in the same vicinity where the crime was committed.

Thus, appealed to SC.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in affirming Roque's conviction for the crime of murder.

Held:

The Court has held that when the issues involve matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This is so because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth. Hence, it is a settled rule that appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court unless there is a showing that the latter overlooked facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. The foregoing rule finds an even more stringent application where the findings of the R TC are sustained by the CA.

In the present case, both the R TC and CA found the testimony of Alex straight forward and worthy of belief. Alex identified Roque as the one who shot his father at the back and his positive declaration was never destroyed even after cross-examination in court. For his part, Roque failed to identify any significant fact or circumstance which would justify the reversal of the RTC's and CA's findings on Alex's credibility.

In People v. Montemayor, the Court ruled that relationship by itself does not give rise to any presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it impair the credibility of witnesses or tarnish their testimonies. The relationship of a witness to the victim would even make his testimony more credible, as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to charge and prosecute another person other than the real culprit. Relatives of victims of crimes have a natural knack for remembering the faces of the attacker and they, more than anybody else, would be concerned with obtaining justice for the victim by having the felon brought to justice and meted the proper penalty. Where there is no showing of an improper motive on the part of the prosecution's witnesses for testifying against the appellant, their relationship to the victim does not render their testimony less credible. 39 In this case, since there is no showing of any ill or improper motive on the part of Alex to testify against the accused, his relationship with the victim even made his testimony more credible and truthful.

The Court also agrees with the CA that the inconsistency between Alex's affidavit and his testimony in open court as to whether there are other witnesses to the crime is immaterial to affect his credibility, because it does not detract from the fact that Alex saw and identified Roque as the assailant of his father.40 In People v. Yanson, 41 the Court held:

x x x [T]his Court had consistently ruled that the alleged inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness in open court and his sworn statement before the investigators are not fatal defects to justify a reversal of judgment. Such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit the witness since ex parte affidavits are almost always incomplete. A sworn statement or an affidavit does not purport to contain a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the affiant. Sworn statements taken ex parte are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court.

xx xx The discrepancies in the witness's testimony do not damage the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence in its material whole. Instead, the discrepancies only erase suspicion that the testimony was rehearsed or concocted. These honest inconsistencies serve to strengthen rather than destroy the witness's credibility.