Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

FORMER SPECIAL FIFTEENTH (15th) DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR No. 43518

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:
- versus -
CRUZ, R.A., Chairperson,
SONNY DARIA y MARQUEZ, ATAL-PAÑO, P.T., and
Accused-Appellant. *
ONG, W. S., JJ.

Promulgated:

June 17, 2021_

x–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––x

RESOLUTION

Cruz, R.A., J.:

For Our consideration is the Accused-Appellant's Motion for

Reconsideration1 of Our Decision2 dated November 20, 2020, arguing
in sum that there was never any concrete evidence that would pin
down Accused-Appellant as the person responsible for the alleged
robbery of the stolen valuables. In particular, the Motion contended
that the testimony of Private Complainant Ibita should not have been
given weight, as her narration was highly speculative and conjectural,
inasmuch as she failed to positively identify Accused-Appellant as the
culprit.
After a judicious review of the Motion, We are of the opinion
that it essentially delves into the same arguments already raised and
judiciously passed upon in the assailed Decision.
At the sake of being pedantic, Ibita had identified the Accused-
Appellant not only by his appearance (“short man, wearing shorts”)
but also by the sound of his voice. She remembered his voice when
he warned them, “Hold up ito!” after poking Ibita and her grandmother
with a bolo on the night of the incident. Even if she only heard him
utter those words once, she was already familiar with him two (2)
years prior to the incident, and had become accustomed to his voice
CA-G.R. CR No. 43518 Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION

and mannerisms. Thus, Ibita’s testimony is clear, categorical,

consistent and credible. Under its evidentiary weight, the Accused-
Appellant’s denial and alibi collapse and crumble.
The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the
testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the
trial court which forms first-hand impressions as witnesses testify
before it.3 It is thus no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial
courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge of
respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor
of witnesses as they testify. We thoroughly reviewed the records of the
case, including the transcript of stenographic notes, and We find no
cogent reason to overturn the probative value given by the trial court
on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, specifically that of
Ibita's. Hence, We sustain the guilty verdict against herein Accused-
Appellant.
There being no new matters raised that would warrant a reversal
or modification of the said Decision, We resolve to DENY the Motion
for Reconsideration dated December 21, 2020.
SO ORDERED.

RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PERPETUA SUSANA T. ATAL- WALTER S. ONG

PAÑO Associate Justice
Associate Justice

*
Designated Third Member of the Special Fifteenth Division vice J. Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela per
Office Order No.315-20-RSF dated November 18, 2020, vice J. Florencio Mamauag, Jr., per Office
Order No. 309-20-RSF dated November 17, 2020.
1
Rollo, pp. 105-112.
2
Id., at 123-140.
3
See People v. Dumadag, G.R. No. 176740, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 535, 544.