People of the Philippines vs. Basao
G.R. No. 189820, October 10, 2012
Ponente: Leonardo- De Castro, J.
Facts:
Version of the Prosecution: Accused appellant together with seven identified co-accused plus 3 unidentified persons were charged for robbery with violence against/ imtimidation of persons by a band. The accused took and carried away from the spouses Yasumitsu Yasuda Hashiba and Emilie Lopio Hashiba cash money amounting to 48,000.00 php and other personal belongings of jewelries amounting to 78,000.00 php against their consent to the damage and prejudice of the spouses. A separate information was also filed against the accused for unlawfully kidnapping Yasumitsi Yasuda Hasiba to an undisclosed place for the purpose of extorting ransoms where he was detained and deprived of his liberty for more then 5 days. On trial, Emilie Hashiba testified that while at their home cooking for supper, 5 men entered their house with gun pointed to her younger brother. She identified the armed men except one who was wearing bonnet mask and although she did not know their names, she was able to recognized them during trial. Both Emilie and Crisologo identified the three accused appellants in court. Yasumitsu was also supposed to give testimony but was unable because of lack of competent Japanese interpreter, thus because of lack of evidence the prosecution moved for the dismissal of the charges. The RTC granted the same. Some of the accused were then acquitted but Rolando and Jovel remained for the positive identification being indicted by Emilie.
Version of the Defense: Accused Rolando and Jovel denied the charges. They maintained that they did not kidnap the Japanese national and that they did not also car napped the car of the victim because it was in fact Emilie who volunteered for them to use the same and in fact she had given them the car key. They denied the truth of the testimonies of Emilie and Crisologo.
Despite the trial court render its decision finding Jovel Aople, Rolando Apole and Renato Apole guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Robbery in Band. On appeal CA affirmed the decision with modification as to the penalties imposed.
Issue:
Whether the court a quo gravely erred in giving full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite their inherent incredibility’s and irreconcilable inconsistencies’ and for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
As consistently adhered to by this court, the matter of assigning values to declaration on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected on the record. Consequently, the settled rule is that when the credibility of the witnesses is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of probative weight thereof are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. It is truer if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court, since it is already binding upon this court. For the above alleged inconsistencies, it is found that they are just minor and inconsequential importance. Both witnesses agreed and identified the three accused appellants to have been the armed male factors. Testimonies of the victims were straight forward and there was no showing of any ill motive on their part to falsely testify against accused appellants. Positive identification of the accused were categorical and consistent.
