PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V.

ROLUSAPE SABALONES
G.R. NO. 123485, AUGUST 31, 1998

FACTS: The accused Beronga, Sabalones, Alegarbes and Cabanero were convicted
after a shooting incident in Cebu in 1985 which led to the death of Glenn Tiempo and
Alfredo Nard. Fatal injuries of Nelson Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Rogelio Presores. The
victims were asked to bring the car of a certain Stephen Lim who also attended a
wedding party. Nelson Tiempo drove the car with Rogelio Oresores and Alfredo Nardo
drove the owner-type jeep along with Glenn Tiempo and Rey Bolo to aid the group back
to the party after parking the car in Lim’s house. When they reached the gate, they were
met with a sudden burst of gunfire. The accused were then identified as the gunmen.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Sabalones and Beronga
appealed to the crime charged against them of two counts of murder, and three counts
of frustrated murder.

ISSUE: Whether the prosecution witnesses and evidences are credible

RULING: Yes.
The Supreme Court will not anymore interfere with the trial court’s assessment of the
credibility of the witnesses, absent any indication or showing that the trial court has
overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion, especially where as in
the case, such assessment is affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The matter assigning
values to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently performed or
carried out by a trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony
in the light of the accused’s behavior, demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial.
Factual findings of the lower courts, trial court and Courts of Appeals are, as general
rule, binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. We find nothing in the instant
case to justify a reversal or modifications of the findings of a trial court and the Court of
Appeals that appellants committed two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated
murder.

The RTC decision was binding to the court with appreciated testimonies of two
witnesses. There was positive identification by survivors who saw them when they
peered during lulls of the gunfire. The place was well-lit. The extrajudicial confession
has no bearing because the conviction was based on a positive identification. It is
binding to the co-accused because it is used as circumstantial evidence corroborated by
one witness. The witnesses were able to see and identify the appellants,having a good
look at them after the initial burst of shots. We stress that the normal reaction of a
person is to direct his sights towards the source of a startling shout or occurrence. As
held in People vs. Dolar, “the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence is to
strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants and to observe the manner in which
the crime is committed”. And even assuming arguendo that the lampposts were not
functioning at the time, the headlights of the jeep and the car were more sufficient to
illuminate the crime scene. The Court has previously held that the light from the stars
and moon , an oven, or wick lamp or gasera can give ample illumination to enable a
person to identify or recognize another. In the same vein, the headlights of a car or a
jeep are sufficient to enable eyewitnesses to identify appellants at the distance of 4 to
10 meters.

The inconsistencies are only minor and inconsequential which strengthen credibility of
testimony. Furthermore, in aberratio ictus, mistake does not diminish culpability; the
same gravity applies; it is more proper to use error in personae. Alibi cannot also prevail
over positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.