Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 200708 (Alvin de Leon y Majia v. People of the Philippines). - We resolve the Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by accused Alvin de Leon y Majia from the 5 October 2011 Decision and 31 January 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 00604-MIN.^[1]

The RTC Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide, for which it sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum.^[2] The trial court ruled that the bare denials of the accused could not prevail over private complainant's positive identification of him as the perpetrator.

The CA Ruling

In dismissing the accused's appeal, the CA upheld the RTC and found that even without the corroborative statements of Reynaldo Aquino and Ronel Martinez, who accompanied the private complainant Oscar Aquino at the time of the shooting incident, Oscar Aquino could not have been mistaken in recognizing accused petitioner as the assailant. Citing People v. Naag,^[3] the CA ruled that a victim of criminal violence often strives hard to recognize the assailant because as such, the victim, more than anybody else, would be interested in bringing the malefactor to justice. However, the CA modified the penalty and instead imposed 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum.

We now rule on the final review of the case.

Our Ruling

We deny the Petition.

The Petition lacks merit. Accused petitioner merely raises the same lone issue which has been thoroughly resolved by the CA, and anchored on the same facts found by the RTC. A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should cover only questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable. The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court.^[4] The well-settled rule in this jurisdiction is that the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal without any clear showing that it overlooked some facts or circumstances which could affect the result of the case.^[5] Petitioner would have us revisit the factual conclusions of the trial court. He argues that a review is necessary, because the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witness is tainted with arbitrariness and allegedly failed to note certain relevant facts that would have justified a different conclusion.^[6]

A careful perusal of the Petition reveals that it is a rehash of the same argument raised before the CA: that the positive identification made by Oscar Aquino was invalid, because he did not immediately recognize the accused petitioner by name.

No error is attributable to the CA in giving credence to Oscar Aquino's testimony, which was consistently detailed and unwavering. The appellate court correctly took into account the location of the incident, which was directly illuminated by a streetlight, and the fact that the victim was only six meters away from accused petitioner.^[7] More importantly, the mere fact that the victim, upon being interviewed by the police, could not immediately name petitioner does not negate the former's recognition of the face and appearance of the latter. Even if Oscar Aquino did not yet know the name of his assailant, the latter's face was recalled by the victim, who categorically pointed him out in open court as Alvin De Leon, petitioner herein.

In any event, knowledge of a person's name is not necessary for proper identification.^[8]  It does not follow that, to be able to identify a person, one must necessarily know the person's name.^[9]  When Oscar Aquino was interviewed at the hospital, his failure to provide the name of the assailant was not fatal to the credibility of his subsequent open court identification. Familiarity with physical features particularly those of the face, is actually the best way to identify a person.^[10] Thus, the victim's positive identification must necessarily prevail over petitioner's bare denials.

There being no reversible error attributable to the appellate court, its findings are affirmed, and the present Petition is denied.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the 5 October 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00604-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON 
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino. In the Resolution, Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello signed as new member vice Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.

^[2] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 16661, promulgated on 8 October 2008, penned by Judge Tibing A. Asaali.

^[3] G.R. No. 136394, 15 February 2001, 351 SCRA 694.

^[4] Ilagan-Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 371374, 8 April 2008, 550 SCRA 635, 647.

^[5] People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 179943, 26 June 2009, 591 SCRA 178, 197.

^[6] Petition for Review, p. 10.

^[7] CA Decision, p. 10.

^[8] People v. Pajes, G.R. No. 184179, 12 April 2010, 618 SCRA 149, 159.

^[9] People v. Verzosa, 355 Phil. 890, 904 (1998).

^[10] Id.