Accused-appellants Mario Navoa, Rafael Navoa, Ricardo Sitchon (accused Mario Saguinza was discharged and utilized as a state witness) were found by the then Court of First Instance of Bataan, Fifth Judicial District, Branch II, "guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as charged, defined, and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced each to suffer an impri­sonment of SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY TO TWENTY (20) YEARS; further they are hereby ordered to indemnify jointly and solidarily the heirs of the victim, Tomas Izon, in the amount of P20,000.00".

The three accused appealed to the then Court of Appeals (now the Intermediate Appellate Court). In a Decision, dated April 11, 1984, the Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court but modified the imposable penalty to reclusion perpetua. Pursuant to our rulings in People vs. Daniel^[1] ; People vs. Ramos^[2] ; and People vs. Centeno, et al.^[3] , the Appellate Court refrained from entering judgment and forthwith certified the case and ele­vated the entire records to this Court for review, the matter being within our exclusive appellate jurisdiction.

After a careful review of the evidence on record, we agree with the findings of fact and the conclusions of law in the appealed Decision.^[4] We, therefore, adopt it in toto and append it as an integral part of this Decision (Annex "A").

The testimonies of eyewitness Baltazar de la Rosa, and of the accused, Mario Saguinza, who had turned state witness, furnish ample evidence to sustain conviction. Saguinza's declaration in open Court also revealed the motive of the three accused.^[5] Appellants' defense of alibi is unavailing as against their positive identification by eyewitness Baltazar de la Rosa and proof of their motive. As to the issue raised by the defense on the credibility of prosecution witnesses, suffice it to re-state the time-tested doctrine that the findings of the Trial Court on witnesses' credibility is entitled to the highest respect by Appellate Tribunals unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misconstrued, which is absent in the case at bar.

The penalty of reclusion perpetua, which is the medium period of the penalty prescribed for Murder, is appropriate in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating cir­cumstance.^[6]

WHEREFORE, we affirm the judgment of conviction imposed upon Mario Navoa, Rafael Navoa, and Ricardo Sitchon and sentence them to suffer reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify, jointly and solidarily, the heirs of the victim, Tomas Izon, in the amount of P30,000.00.^[7]

With proportionate costs. SO ORDERED.

Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., and De La Fuente, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., (Chairman), in the result.

---

^[1] 86 SCRA 511 (1978).

^[2] 88 SCRA 486 (1979).

^[3] 108 SCRA 712 (1981).

^[4] Penned by Associate Appellate Justice Juan A. Sison, concurred in by Associate Appellate Justices Rodolfo A. Nocon and Federico B. Alfonso, Jr.

^[5] T.s.n., June 9, 1977, pp. 6-13.

^[6] Article 248, in relation to Article 64, Revised Penal Code.

^[7] People vs. de la Fuente, 126 SCRA 518, 524 (1983); Peo­ple vs. Villeza, 127 SCRA 349 (1984).