Plaintiff-Appellee vs. vs. Accused-Appellant: Second Division
Plaintiff-Appellee vs. vs. Accused-Appellant: Second Division
Plaintiff-Appellee vs. vs. Accused-Appellant: Second Division
DECISION
CAGUIOA , J : p
The CA found that all the elements of Murder were established by the
prosecution through the testimony of the eyewitness and corroborated by the results
of the post mortem examination of the victim. 1 6 Anent the qualifying circumstance of
treachery, the CA held that the prosecution managed to demonstrate that the attack on
the unsuspecting victim, who was merely inside the house and talking to Leyden, was
very sudden. 1 7
Further, the CA ruled that, apart from accused-appellant Edgar's self-serving
testimony, no other evidence was presented by him to show the elements of self-
defense. On the contrary, the nature and the number of wounds sustained by the victim
logically indicate that the assault was no longer an act of self-defense but a determined
aggression on the part of accused-appellant Edgar. 1 8
Hence, this appeal.
Issues
Whether the CA erred in a rming accused-appellant Edgar's conviction for
Murder.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is partly meritorious.
It is settled that ndings of fact of the trial courts are generally accorded great
weight; except when it appears on the record that the trial court may have overlooked,
misapprehended, or misapplied some signi cant fact or circumstance which if
considered, would have altered the result. 1 9 This is axiomatic in appeals in criminal
cases where the whole case is thrown open for review on issues of both fact and law,
and the court may even consider issues which were not raised by the parties as errors.
2 0 The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders
such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase
the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 2 1
After a careful review and scrutiny of the records, the Court a rms the
conviction of accused-appellant Edgar but for the crime of Homicide, instead of
Murder, as the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were
not present in the killing of the victim Leonora.
Qualifying circumstances of treachery
and evident premeditation
Settled is the rule that qualifying circumstances must be proved with the same
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
quantum of evidence as the crime itself, that is, beyond reasonable doubt. 2 2 Hence, for
accused-appellant Edgar to be convicted of Murder, the prosecution must not only
establish that he killed Leonora; it must also prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the
killing of Leonora was attended by treachery or evident premeditation.
Both the RTC and the CA found that the killing of Leonora was attended by
treachery only because of the suddenness of accused-appellant Edgar's attack against
the victim. However, mere suddenness of the attack is not su cient to hold that
treachery is present. For treachery to exist there must be a showing that the means of
execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the accused with a view of
accomplishing the act without risk to the aggressor. 2 3 Thus, in People v. Caliao 2 4
(Caliao), the Court found the accused therein guilty of Homicide only, not Murder,
because there was no showing that the accused made any preparation to kill the victim
in such a manner as to insure the commission of the crime or make it impossible or
di cult for the victim to retaliate or defend himself. 2 5 The Court also ruled that "when
aid was easily available to the victim, such as when the attendant circumstances show
that there were several eyewitnesses to the incident, including the victim's family, no
treachery could be appreciated because if the accused indeed consciously adopted
means to insure the facilitation of the crime, he could have chosen another place or
time." 2 6 aCIHcD
Finally, in view of the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta, 3 7 the damages awarded
in the assailed Decision are hereby modi ed to civil indemnity, moral damages, and
temperate damages of P50,000.00 each.
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the Court DECLARES accused-appellant
Edgar Gayon y Ferreras GUILTY of HOMICIDE , for which he is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum,
to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of Leonora Givera the amount of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00)
as moral damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as temperate damages. All
monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum
from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED .
Carpio, J.C. Reyes, Jr. and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, * J., is on leave.
Footnotes
* On leave.
7. CA rollo, p. 59.
8. Rollo, pp. 3-4.
9. CA rollo, pp. 58-61.
10. Id. at 89.
16. Id. at 5.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
17. Id. at 6.
23. See People v. Caliao, G.R. No. 226392, July 23, 2018, p. 7.
24. Id.
25. See id. at 7-8.
26. Id. at 7.
32. Id. at 5.
33. Guevarra v. People, 726 Phil. 183, 194 (2014).
34. People v. Dolorido, 654 Phil. 467, 475 (2011).
35. Nacnac v. People, 685 Phil. 223, 229 (2012).
36. 747 Phil. 376, 388 (2014).