8/22/2019 Crim Pro- People vs Combate
1/2
ZOSA, Imelda B.II- B
1 | P a g e
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 ofBacolod.
FACTS
This is a consolidated criminal case nos. (1)95-17070- Murder;
(2)95-17071- Homicide against theaccused-appellant, who killed
Edmund Prayco and Leopoldo Guiro respectively on March 16, 1995
inthe 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 incrime of Homicide with the
penalty of RECLUSION TEMPORAL in its medium period and payment
ofindemnity, compensatory damages, reimbursement of burial expenses
to the heirs of Guiro & moraldamages; and in the crime of
Murder with the penalty of Reclusion perpetua and payment
ofindemnity and compensatory damages to the heirs of Prayco.
On January 30, 2008, the CA affirmed the assailed judgment of
the lower court and modified theaward of damages which deleted the
compensatory damages in both cases thus, awardingexemplary damages
of P25, 000.00 to heirs of Leopoldo Guiro and awarding the same to
heirs ofEdmund Prayco.
The judgment of the RTC- Bacolod which was affirmed by the CA
was then questioned by accused-
appelant, Jose Combate that the trial court erred in convicting
him of the crimes of homicide andmurder, despite the fact that his
guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because of
theinconsistencies of the testimonies of the witness of the
prosecution and those inconsistencies willerode the credibility of
the witness. The accused-appellant said that there was a failure of
the lowercourt to.
ISSUE/s
Whether or not the RTC of Bacolod erred in convicting the
accused of the crime homicide & Murderdespite 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 entitledto great
weight, sometimes even with finality. The Supreme Court will not
interfere with that
8/22/2019 Crim Pro- People vs Combate
2/2
ZOSA, Imelda B.II- B
2 | P a g e
assessment, absent any indication that the lower court has
overlooked some material facts orgravely abused its discretion.
Minor and insignificant inconsistencies bolster
credibilityComplementing 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, forthey 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,
butenhances 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
aconclusion on the basis of said parts. In ascertaining the facts
established by witnesses, everythingstated by them on direct,
cross, and redirect examinations must be calibrated and considered.
Itmust be stressed in this regard that facts imperfectly or
erroneously stated in an answer to onequestion may be supplied or
explained as qualified by the answer to other question.
Theprinciple 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 factsand disbelieve it with respect to other
facts. And it has been aptly said that even whenwitnesses are found
to have deliberately falsified in some material particulars, it is
notrequired that the whole of their uncorroborated testimony be
rejected but such portionsthereof deemed worthy of belief may be
credited.
The primordial consideration is that the witness was present at
the scene of the crime and that hepositively identified [the
accused] as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged.
POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION PREVAILS OVER DEFENSE OF
DENIALCategorical 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 waspositively and categorically
identified by the witnesses. They have no reason to perjure and
accused-appellant was unable to prove that the prosecution
witnesses were moved by any considerationother than to see that
justice is done. Thus, the presumption that their testimonies were
not movedby 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 forthe 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 propercases.[10][59] InPeople v.
Tubongbanua,[11][60]interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was
ordered to beapplied on the award of damages. This rule would be
subsequently applied by the Court in severalcases 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%)
perannum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all
damages, i.e., actual orcompensatory damages, moral damages and
exemplary damages, from the date of finality ofjudgment until fully
paid.
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn10http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn10http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn10http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn10
