side of the jeep; he ran to Mata St. to get away from them; Lauro tried to go around him and when he saw him, Lauro tried to hack him with the jungle bolo so he fired his gun at him; he was not sure if he hit Lauro at the first shot but he saw Lauro still approaching him so he fired another shot; he was not himself at that time because he was rattled, but he can remember that he fired a third shot; he felt that he was being hit by beer bottles so he turned around and saw Rodelio approaching him carrying a long bladed weapon forcing him to shoot him once; he did not see the reaction of Rodelio because he ran to Panday Pira St. going to Lacson after firing the shot; before the incident, he had no bad blood nor quarrel with the Bulurans; however, when the Bulurans were drunk, they would hurt other people by slapping and boxing them, and he was a witness to one of these incidents.25

On cross-examination, he stated that: he is a former policeman and was dismissed from the service; at the time of the incident, he was waiting for his reinstatement; he owns the licensed firearm which he used; his disagreement with his brother was because of the changing of the television channel which

a warrant of arrest; he knew that there were charges against him and he even attended the preliminary investigation before his arrest.26

On re-direct examination, he stated that: after he attended the the preliminary investigation, he went back to Orani, Bataan and did not go home because he was afraid of the brothers of the victims, besides, during that time, his family was receiving

death threats and a letter from the relatives of the victims saying that they will make a move; and, his mother however told him that the letter came from a leftist group.27

On March 5, 2007, prosecution witness Mercedita Buluran turned hostile and

testified that: she executed an Affidavit of Desistance for the reason that she got angry with her brother-in-law Ernesto because even though she lost her husband, Ernesto still wanted to get a part of her house; she executed the said affidavit of desistance on

August 26, 2002 and even before the date, the father of accused-appellant del Rosario went to her mother's house in order to settle the case amicably; and, she was paid in exchange for the execution of the said

affidavit.28

at him, he went to them and asked them what their problem was; when Mang Danny approached him, put his arms on his shoulders and led him to the store, he suddenly felt that something hit him on his nape; he turned and saw the Buluran brothers approaching him; he pushed Mang Danny and said "Ayan na sila."; he felt afraid because that was the first time he experienced that kind of situation; he was not able to run because they were already approaching him; he was in the middle of the street when he fired a warning shot; Rodelio hid behind a drum, Ernesto moved backward, while Lauro hid at the side of the jeep; however, the three did not run away; after the incident, he went to Jolibee Monumento and did not go home because he was confused; he threw away the gun while walking away from the scene; on November 18, 2001, he was arrested at Orani, Bataan by the virtue of

25 TSN, dated January 9, 2006, pp. 5-65

On November 20, 2007, the lower court rendered the assailed decision. Hence, this

errors:29

I.

THAT THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT DID NOT ACT IN LAWFUL SELFDEFENSE OR THAT, AT THE VERY LEAST, THE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION DID NOT COME FROM HIM THEREBY ENTITLING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO THE BENEFIT OF ART. 69 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE OR INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE;

။

THAT THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF THE HOSTILE WITNESS, MERCEDITA BULURAN AND HER "SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY NANG

26 TSN, dated February 10, 2006, pp. 4-61 27 Id., pp. 62-66

28 TSN, dated March 5, 2007, pp. 7-27 29 Rollo, pp. 135-136

PAG-UURONG NG SAKDAL" WHICH SHE AFFIRMED, RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED ON THE WITNESS STAND AND IN HER ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED BY THE LOWER COURT ITSELF; MERCEDITA BULURAN IS THE WIDOW OF THE VICTIM, RODELIO BULURAN AND HAD PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED FOR THE PROSECUTION;

THAT THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED AND COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN WHOLLY DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT, THE DEFENSE WITNESS EMMA TOLENTINO, AMELIA DEL ROSARIO AND THE OTHER TESTIMONIES/ EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The appeal lacks merit.

Accused-appellant del Rosario argues that: the lower court erred in finding him not to have acted in lawful self-defense; the lower court should have been more discerning in accepting the testimony of Danny Manalo and its findings that it was unlikely for the Bulurans to initiate the trouble for they were in a jovial mood; the lower court erred in giving undue weight and credence on Danny Manalo's testimonies; there is a reasonable doubt as to where the unlawful aggression came from considering the atmosphere of anger, animosity and belligerence then prevailing between the Bulurans and accusedappellant del Rosario; the truth of the matter is that the unlawful aggression came from the Bulurans when Ernesto Buluran insulted accused-appellant del Rosario; Perlita Buluran even testified that accusedappellant del Rosario pointed the gun at her group only after Ernesto Buluran asked accused-appellant del Rosario who his enemy was and why was he cursing.

employed to prevent or repel it; and c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.30

The lower court did not err in convicting accused-appellant del Rosario. From the testimonies of Danny Manalo, it is very clear that unlawful aggression really came from accused-appellant del Rosario, thus:

"The Court gives credence to the narration of Danilo Manalo that Ernesto Buluran had admonished the accused by saying: "Eric, what is your problem? Why are you making trouble here?"; and it was that exortation which triggered the shooting rampage of the accused that left the two brothers dead. Incidentally, the court gathered from the police investigation report that there were two (2) other victims of the shooting, namely: Dan Christopher Mejia, an 11 year old student, and Rodolfo Danan, a sidecar driver; but who however desisted from pursuing the charge against herein accused. This circumstance indicate that numerous shots were actually fired by the accused, which negate the theory that he fired only to defend himself."31

While it may be argued that there may have been some throwing of bottles that occurred and that accused-appellant del Rosario was hit by the same, still, this Court is not convinced of his self-defense theory. Accused-appellant del Rosario even testified that he was already angry when he went out of their house because of his recent argument with his brother regarding the changing of television channel. From his testimony, it is very clear that he was. already in a state of agitation when he went to a nearby store.

Furthermore, the testimony of Danny Manalo is more credible considering that Manalo was known to both accusedappellant del Rosario and the Buluran brothers because it negates any doubt as to Manalo's intention in testifying against accused-appellant del Rosario. There is an absence of ill motive on Manalo's part when he testified against accused-appellant del Rosario.

30 People vs. Concepcion, 514 SCRA 660, Beninsig vs. People, 524 SCRA 320, Razon vs. People, 525 SCRA 284

31 Records pp. 463B to 464 (p. 6 of the assailed decision)

Accused-appellant del Rosario's contention that he did not intend to shoot anyone is belied by the fact that he did not only shoot the Buluran brothers but fired his gun indiscriminately. From the lower court's appreciation of the facts, it appears that there were two (2) other victims of that shooting incident, namely: Dan Christopher Mejia and Rodolfo Danan.

Appellate courts will not disturb the credibility accorded by trial courts to the witnesses and their testimonies, unless certain facts and circumstances of significance have been overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded.32

Accused-appellant del Rosario further argues that the lower court erred in disregarding the testimony of hostile witness Mercedita Buluran and her "Sinumpaang Salaysay sa Pag-uurong ng Sakdal" which she affirmed, ratified and confirmed on the witness stand.

This argument deserves scant consideration.

The lower court correctly disregarded the recantation made by hostile witness Mercedita Buluran. For one, she readily For one, she readily admitted in open court that she made her sworn statement due to the fact that she got angry with his brother-in-law, Ernesto Buluran, when the latter wanted to get a part of their house. Furthermore, she also reluctantly admitted during the crossexamination that she was assisted financially by accused-appellant del Rosario's father for her husband's funeral expenses in exchange for executing the said affidavit of desistance.

Retractions are generally unreliable and are looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. A retraction of a witness does not necessarily negate an original testimony. Affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses usually for a monetary consideration. Like any other testimony, recantations are subject to the test of

32 People vs. Gregorio, Jr., 523 SCRA 216

credibility based on the relevant circumstances and, especially, on the demeanor of the witness on the stand.33

Thus, in the case of Balderama vs. People of the Philippines34 and Nagal vs. Armamento35, it was held that:

"A recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation. The Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. It is settled that an affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction of the accused is not reliable, and deserves only scant attention. The rationale for the rule is obvious: affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated. Only when there exist special circumstances in the case which when coupled with the retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the testimony or statement given, can retractions be considered and upheld. As found by the Sandiganbyan, "(t)here is indubitably nothing in the affidavit which creates doubts on the guilt of accused Balderama and Nagal."

Accused-appellant del Rosario further argues that the lower court erred in wholly disregarding the testimonies of accusedappellant, Emma Tolentino, Amelia del Rosario and other testimonies/evidence in

his favor.

This argument is untenable.

It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.36

Appellate courts will generally not disturb factual findings of the trial court since the latter had the unique opportunity to weigh conflicting testimonies, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying.37 The

33 People of the Philippines vs. Pili, G.R. No. 181255. October 16, 2009.

34 G.R. Nos. 147578-85. January 28, 2008.
35 G.R. Nos. 147578-605. January 28, 2008
36 People vs. Pringas, 531 SCRA 828
37 People vs. Tuazon, 532 SCRA 152

JONATHAN SIH TO, Petitioner
ORDER

Before this Court is an Amended Petition for Naturalization filed by Jonathan Sih To. Among others, the petitioner alleges: he is single, Chinese citizen and has been residing at No. 29 Kapitan Simeon Luz St., Lipa City for 39 years or since his birth; he was born on August 9, 1970 at N.L. Villa Hospital, Lipa City and had studied and finished elementary, high school and college education in Philippine Schools, which were all recognized by the Philippine Government; he speaks and writes English and Tagalog and believes in the underlying principles of the Philippine Constitution; he has been employed at the Lipa City Panceteria and pays taxes regularly; he is of good moral character and that during the entire of his residence in the Philippines, he has conducted himself in a proper and

irreproachable manner in his relations with the duly constituted government as well as with the community in where he lives; he has mingled socially with Filipinos and has evidenced of his genuine desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideas of the Filipinos; he is not opposed to organized government nor affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; he is not a polygamist or a believer in polygamy or practice polygamy; he is not a citizen or a subject of a nation at war with the Philippines and has never been convicted of any involving moral turpitude; and that he is not suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases. Moreover, he points out that it is his intention to become a Filipino Citizen and to renounce absolutely and forever, all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign state and sovereignty, particularly to China of which at this time, he is a citizen; and that he undertakes to continuously reside in the Philippines from the date of filing of this petition up to the time of admission to the Philippine Citizenship.

In support of his petition, he alleges that Nilda R. Joaquin, a resident of Interior, Malvar St., Lipa City and Dy Pang Lim of No. 437 San Carlos, Lipa City, will appear and testify as witnesses at the hearing of this petition. He further states that having been born in the Philippines, he is exempt to present a certificate of arrival issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and to file a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines.

Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the same is hereby set for hearing on September 26, 2012 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning at the Session Hall