ZOSA, Imelda B. II- B Felix Abe, et al vs Foster Wheeler Corp. & Caltex Inc. GR NO.

L-14785 & L-14923 Barrera, J.p. Nature of the Case An appeal before the SC against the CAs decision affirming the conviction of the accused by the RTC of Bacolod. FACTS This is a consolidated criminal case nos. (1)95-17070- Murder; (2)95-17071- Homicide against the accused-appellant, who killed Edmund Prayco and Leopoldo Guiro respectively on March 16, 1995 in the Municipality of Murcia, Negros Occidental. The accused appellant has said to have used a firearm, with treachery, with intent to kill and taking advantage of nighttime, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot the victims. On July 2, 2003, the RTC of Bacolod City convicted the accused-appellant, Jose Pepito Combate in crime of Homicide with the penalty of RECLUSION TEMPORAL in its medium period and payment of indemnity, compensatory damages, reimbursement of burial expenses to the heirs of Guiro & moral damages; and in the crime of Murder with the penalty of Reclusion perpetua and payment of indemnity and compensatory damages to the heirs of Prayco. On January 30, 2008, the CA affirmed the assailed judgment of the lower court and modified the award of damages which deleted the compensatory damages in both cases thus, awarding exemplary damages of P25, 000.00 to heirs of Leopoldo Guiro and awarding the same to heirs of Edmund Prayco. The judgment of the RTC- Bacolod which was affirmed by the CA was then questioned by accusedappelant, Jose Combate that the trial court erred in convicting him of the crimes of homicide and murder, despite the fact that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because of the inconsistencies of the testimonies of the witness of the prosecution and those inconsistencies will erode the credibility of the witness. The accused-appellant said that there was a failure of the lower court to. ISSUE/s Whether or not the RTC of Bacolod erred in convicting the accused of the crime homicide & Murder despite the fact that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. RULING NO. The following doctrines were then referred to by the court in its decision. The Factual findings of the court should be respected. Time-tested is the doctrine that the trial courts assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality. The Supreme Court will not interfere with that

1|P a g e

ZOSA, Imelda B. II- B assessment, absent any indication that the lower court has overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion. Minor and insignificant inconsistencies bolster credibility Complementing the above doctrine is the equally established rule that minor and insignificant inconsistencies in the testimony tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of witnesses, for they show that the testimony is not contrived or rehearsed. As the Court put it in People v. Cristobal, Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming. Testimony of a witness must be considered with entirety. The testimony of a witness must be considered in its entirety and not merely on its truncated parts. The technique in deciphering a testimony is not to consider only its isolated parts and anchor a conclusion on the basis of said parts. In ascertaining the facts established by witnesses, everything stated by them on direct, cross, and redirect examinations must be calibrated and considered. It must be stressed in this regard that facts imperfectly or erroneously stated in an answer to one question may be supplied or explained as qualified by the answer to other question. The principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not strictly applied to this jurisdiction. In People v. Osias: It is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts. And it has been aptly said that even when witnesses are found to have deliberately falsified in some material particulars, it is not required that the whole of their uncorroborated testimony be rejected but such portions thereof deemed worthy of belief may be credited. The primordial consideration is that the witness was present at the scene of the crime and that he positively identified [the accused] as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged. POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION PREVAILS OVER DEFENSE OF DENIAL Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the defense of denial. Accused-appellant was positively and categorically identified by the witnesses. They have no reason to perjure and accusedappellant was unable to prove that the prosecution witnesses were moved by any consideration other than to see that justice is done. Thus, the presumption that their testimonies were not moved by any ill will and bias stands, and, therefore, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. The court then stated WHAT MAY BE RECOVERED WHEN DEATH OCCURS. When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorneys fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[10][59] InPeople v. Tubongbanua,[11][60] interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court in several cases such asMendoza v. People,[12][61] People v. Buban,[13][62] People v. Guevarra,[14][63] and People v. Regalario.[15][64] Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.

2|P a g e