FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 218200, August 15, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY COLLAMAT A.K.A. "RICRIC", JIMBO SALADAGA AND RONILO RONDINA, Accused,
JEFFREY COLLAMAT A.K.A. "RIC-RIC", Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Assailed in this appeal is the December 12, 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB C.R.-H.C. No. 01674 which affirmed with modification the July 3, 2012 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 28, Mandaue City, finding appellant Jeffrey Collamat guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
The Antecedent Facts
Appellant, together with his co-accused, Jimbo Saladaga (Jimbo) and Ronilo Rondina (Ronilo), was charged with the of murder m an Information3 dated May 10, 2002 which reads:
That on or about the 13th day of January, 2002, at about 6:30 o'clock in the evening, at Sitio Simborio, Barangay Tayud, Municipality of Liloan, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab Esmeralda Gelido with the used [sic] of an ice pick, thereby [inflicting] upon the victim the following, to wit: "hemorrhage, acute, severe, secondary to multiple punctures [sic] wounds (R) and (L) clavecular [sic] areas, and (R) chest," which caused the instantaneous death of the victim.During his arraignment on July 5, 2002, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.4 Trial thereafter ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
x x x [On January 13, 2002,] at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon[,] they were singing at the [v]ideoke in Analyn['s] Store situated at Simborio, Tayud, Liloan, Cebu; his companions were Ronilo Rondina, Benjie Marianito, Junry Collamat, Armando Solitano, [and] Elmo Dela Peña; they arrived at the store at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon; there were other customers in the store; they finished drinking at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening; they consumed 1 1/2 cases of beer grande; Benido Jumao-as arrived at the store at around 3:30 o'clock with Esmeralda; both were drinking redhorse beer; later[,] there was a verbal altercation between Benjie Marianito and Benido after the latter happened to topple the former's glass on the table and he tried to appease them; shortly thereafter[,] Ramon Judaya arrived and patched up Benjie and Benido; both group[s] continued singing and drinking; he left at around 7:00 o'clock; he was the last to leave the store; he went to [his] cousin['s] in Opao, Mandaue City and stayed for the night; in the morning[,] he was arrested for being the suspect of a killing in Simborio.9Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
Treachery was clearly shown by the testimony of Benido who stated that: At around 6:30 o'clock in the evening, he left the store followed by the victim. Accused Jimbo and Jeffrey in fact said, "Sige bay[,] sunod lang mi ninyo" (OK bay, we'll just follow you.) x x x That they never noticed accused were behind them. What he noticed then was when accused put their arms on the shoulder of the victim. The victim was already down when Ramon came back[,] which showed the suddenness of the attack "depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself.["] The accused Jimbo put his arm around the victim to ensure a means of perpetrating the killing of which the victim was not able to [wrest] away from his hold.12Accordingly, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It likewise ordered appellant to pay the heirs of the victim: P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages.13
Here, prior to the stabbing of the victim, the assailants' group and that of the victim's group were all drinking and singing [at] Analyn's Videoke Store. Both groups had an altercation but were pacified. The group of appellant was even offered a round of beer just to appease them which they willingly accepted. It should be pointed out that the two groups started their beer drinking around three o'clock in the afternoon and ended about past six o'clock. Thus, there was an interval of about three hours prior to the stabbing incident. In our firm view, the time interval was sufficient for the eyewitness to recognize appellant's group as among the persons who followed them from the store. It should be emphasized that Benido even bid the other group good-bye when he and the victim left the store ahead of the appellant's group.16The CA further held that Benido's positive identification of appellant as one of the victim's assailants was bolstered by his detailed account of how the crime was carried out and appellant's exact participation in it.17
Also, the issue hinges on credibility of witnesses. We have consistently adhered to the rule that where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect. These findings will not be ordinarily disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case. It is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe 'the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or their scant or full realization of their oaths. It had the better opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. Inconsistencies or contradictions in the testimony of the victim do not affect the veracity of the testimony if the inconsistencies do not pertain to material points.23 (Emphasis supplied)After a thorough review of the records, we find no reason to overturn the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, since it was not shown that the lower courts had overlooked facts or circumstances of weight that could have affected the result of the case.
Even during his grueling cross-examination, Benido remained steadfast in his positive identification of appellant, viz.:
[PROS. RAMON O. CARISMA:]Q:Let's go back to the point where you happened to spill somebody else's glass and where you said a fistfight ensued. Do you know these persons?A:Yes.Q:How many persons were there?A:There were many of them but I know only 4 in that group.Q:Of the four[,] do you see all or some of them inside the courtroom?A:Yes.Q:Will you please point to these persons inside the courtroom?A:Jimbo...Q:Will you please approach them?COURT INTERPRETER:Witness, after coming down from the witness stand, pointed to the persons of Jimbo Saladaga and Jeffrey Collamat, who, after being asked their names, answered their names to be so.24x x x xPROS. CARISMA:Q:Who stabbed ompanion?A:Jimbo.Q:What were the others doing?A:They were holding the victim.25x x x xQ:And the three others who held your companion, whom you said earlier was Esmeraldo, is one among these three persons inside the courtroom?A:Yes, Jeffrey Collamat.26
In light of appellant's positive identification as one of the victim's assailants, his defenses of alibi and denial must necessarily fail.28 After all, it is settled that "alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and 'must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused',"29 as in this case.
[ATTY. GIA RODRIGUEZ:]Q:Is it not possible that you were mistaken when you claimed that the group of the accused was the one who stabbed your companion with an icepick[,] considering that it was dark?A:No.Q:Why are you so certain?A:Because I clearly saw them.27
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2582 (Revised) dated August 8, 2018.
** Per October 9, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.
*** Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 4-12; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando and concurred in by Associate Justices Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
2 Records, pp. 182-188; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Raphael B. Yrastorza, Sr.
3 Id. at 1.
4 See Order dated July 5, 2009, id. at 40; issued by Judge Marilyn Lagura-Yap.
5 CA rollo, p. 73.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id. See also TSN, July 2, 2003, pp. 4-7.
9 Id. at 27.
10 Records, p. 188.
11 Id. at 186.
12 Id. at 186-187. Italics supplied.
13 Id. at 188.
14Rollo, p. 12.
15 Id. at 10.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 11.
19 CA rollo, pp. 29-30.
20 Id. at 31-32.
21People v. Aquino, 396 Phil. 303, 306-307 (2000).
22 424 Phil. 829 (2002).
23 Id. at 836.
24 TSN, January 15, 2003, pp. 5-6.
25 Id. at 6.
26 Id. at 7. Emphasis supplied.
27 TSN, January 29, 2003, p. 16.
28 See S/Sgt. Vergara v. People, 425 Phil. 124, 138 (2002).
29People v. Clemeno, G.R. No. 215202, March 14, 2018.
30People v. Alajay, 456 Phil. 83, 92 (2003).
31 TSN, January 15, 2003, p. 6.
32 Id.
33 TSN, July 2, 2003, pp. 4-5.
34 See People v. Alajay, supra note 30.
35People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 846-848 (2016).