GR 110807; (January, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110807 January 20, 2000
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Reynald T. Narvasa @ Allan, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that on April 14, 1992, Mario Raguindin was attending a wake in Dagupan City. His brother, David, witnessed appellant Reynald Narvasa suddenly rush past him and stab Mario in the back. Mario grappled with the appellant, wrestled the knife away, and both fell to the ground. David approached, and Mario stated, “Naalaak, hermano.” Mario was brought to the hospital but died en route. David reported that the motive was Mario’s refusal to give appellant milkfish from his fishpond.
The defense presented a contrary version. Appellant claimed the Raguindin brothers accosted him after he won money gambling at the wake. Mario held a knife to his neck, and David stabbed him in the chest. During a struggle, David attempted another stab but accidentally hit Mario instead. Defense witnesses Joel Vidal and Rodolfo Tamayo corroborated this. The trial court convicted appellant of murder qualified by treachery.
ISSUE
The core issue is the credibility of witnesses, specifically whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution’s version over the defense’s account of the incident.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded high respect, as it is in a better position to observe demeanor. The prosecution’s eyewitness, David Raguindin, gave a clear, consistent, and straightforward account. The Court found no ill motive for David to falsely testify against the appellant. His identification was reliable, as the area was illuminated by electric lights from houses and a lamppost. The defense’s reliance on the testimony of the child witness, Joel Vidal, was unavailing. The trial court correctly found the testimonies of defense witnesses, who were relatives and friends of the appellant, to be unreliable and inconsistent. The presence of treachery was correctly appreciated, as the attack on the victim was sudden, from behind, and without warning, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the appellant. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was affirmed in toto.