4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the crime.[15] Oscar Conde avers that the trial court erred in: I ...NOT HOLDING THE ARREST OF THE ACCUSED ILLEGAL II ...ACCORDING THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES APOLLO ROMERO AND PO3 RODENCIO SEVILLANO FULL CREDENCE III ...HOLDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH DOUBLE (sic) HOMICIDE.[16] Oscar Conde claims that he was illegally arrested by the authorities. He adds that the Indian Embassy was pressuring the police to solve the murder. He avers that the testimony of Romero is insufficient to sustain his conviction. He cites the delay of Romero in reporting what he saw, hence Romero's testimony is unbelievable. Lastly, Conde wants this Court to disregard as evidence the stolen items and weapons illegally seized by the police.[17] The Office of the Solicitor General, for its part, filed its appellee's brief only in regard to Oscar Conde's appeal. According to the OSG, the testimony of Apollo Romero deserves full faith and credence since the appellants failed to show any improper motive on his part. The same is true for the testimony of PO3 Sevillano who also enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties. In conclusion, the Solicitor General prays that the conviction of the appellants be affirmed. Citing People vs. Escandor, 265 SCRA 444, 445 (1996), the OSG stresses that the findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, because the trial court is in the best position to make an honest determination of the witnesses' behavior and deportment during trial.[18] In substance, the issues raised by both appellants are (1) Whether or not the identification made by Apollo Romero deserves credence; (2) Whether or not the arrests of the appellants were illegal; (3) Whether or not the alleged stolen objects, i.e., the beach towel and umbrella, can be presented in evidence. Anent the first issue, we are in agreement with the submission by the Office of the Solicitor General. First, factual findings of the trial court are conclusive upon this Court and its evaluation regarding the credibility of witnesses are given great weight and respect unless there is a showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case.[19] Being in a better position to observe the witnesses for the prosecution as well as the defense, the trial court's appreciation of their testimony, truthfulness, honesty and candor deserves the highest respect.[20] Allan Atis insists that it was impossible for Romero to have identified him since Romero only saw him https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52087 4/10