ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138281. July 12, 1999]

ANTONIO MILITAR vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 12, 1999.

G.R. No. 138281 (Antonio Militar vs. People of the Philippines.)

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 23 October 1998, in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Militar (CA-G.R. No. 21386) and its Resolution, dated 19 April 1999, which denied the motion for reconsideration of the cited decision.

Petitioner Senior Inspector Antonio Militar was charged with the crime of Grave Threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code with the Metropolitan Trial Court of manila, Branch 7. After the trial, petitioner was convicted of the crime charged for uttering the words: "Putang-ina mo Peejay, mag-iingat ka sa akin, papatayin kita." Petitioner appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court with the Regional Trial Court. On appeal, the decision of the lower court was affirmed. The Regional Trial Court sentenced petitioner to a penalty of imprisonment for two (2) months and one (1) day to four (4) months of arresto mayor and to pay a fine of three hundred (P300.00) pesos.1 [CA Decision, Rollo, p. 45.] Unrattled by this defeat, petitioner filed a petition for review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court with the Court of Appeals. Finding no reason to reverse the decision of the Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification as to the penalty. The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals reads thus:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the decision dated October 16, 1997 is AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that the penalty of "fine of THREE HUNDRED (P300.00) PESOS x x x," should be "with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency." x x x

SO OREDERED. 2 [Id., at 61.]

Hence, the recourse to this Court.

Petitioner presents for resolution of the Court the following issues:

1. The rule giving weight to the trial court's findings on credibility of witnesses is not applicable to the present case;

2. The irreconcilable inconsistencies on substantial matters greatly affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses;

3. It is not probable for the herein petitioner to have declared the threat "Putang ina mo Peejay, mag-iingay ka sa akin, papatayin kita," and;

4. The declaration "Putang ina mo Peejay, mag-iingat ka sa akin, papatayin kita," does not constitute the crime of Grave Threat.

We find the petition devoid of merit. The Court of Appeals correctly upheld the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court.

Except for the last issue presented by petitioner, all the rest of the issues are factual in nature and is beyond the scope of review of this Court. Well-entrenched in this jurisdiction is the principle that factual findings of the trial court, adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal.3 [GSIS vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 128471, March 6, 1998.] This Court finds no justifiable reason or exception sufficient to deviate from his rule as to cause a reversal of the judgments rendered by both the trial and appellate courts. Corollary thereto, the findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of any showing that some fact or circumstances of weight or substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition of the case.4 [People vs. Bersabe, G.R. No. 122768, April 27, 1998.] Indeed, the trial court is in a better position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, as it has the opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude while on the witness stand.5 [Ibid.] In the case at bar, both the Court of Appeals and the trial court accorded full faith and credence to the testimony of the sixteen year-old complainant rationalizing that the same was delivered clearly and convincingly.

Pitted against the unwavering testimony of the complainant is petitioner's denial and alibi. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, the defenses set up by petitioner cannot outweigh the convincing declaration by complainant who pointed to, and positively identified petitioner as the person who threatened him. It is settled that alibi cannot prevail over the prosecution witness' positive identification of the accused.6 [People vs. Cabebe, G.R. No. 125910, May 21, 1998.]

With regard to the argument of petitioner that the uttered words do not constitute the crime of Grave Threats,7 [Art. 282. Grave Threat.- Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:

1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime he threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.

If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.

2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos, if the threat shall have been made subject to a condition.] the same cannot be sustained. As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, all the elements of the crime were established by the prosecution. Petitioner threatened complainant with the infliction of a crime upon his person. The threat was made without petitioner attaining his purpose. Lastly, the threat was not subject to a condition.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE