This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2001-01-18 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.[29] The contention of Ronil Abundo that he was at the detachment from 6:00 a.m. up to 4:00 p.m., uncorroborated by any witness, is self-serving and unworthy of credence. Even if Abundo were at the detachment at 4:00 p.m. where he was allegedly approached by Bernarda, it was not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at 2:30 p.m, as it was not sufficiently established that the travel time from Sitio Ampay to the CAFGU detachment at the poblacion of San Antonio is two and a half (2 ½) hours. According to the defense, the testimony of eyewitness Allan Martinez that the crime was committed at 2:30 p.m. and that he reached the house of Bernarda Martinez at 5:00 p.m. proves that the travel time is two and a half hours. We do not agree. Allan saw the four accused approach the victims at 2:30 p.m. Although the crime was carried out immediately, Allan "slowly crawled" out of his hiding place to avoid being seen by the assailants.[30] He then took a different route, that is, "through the thickets and forests" to avoid encountering any person on his way back to the poblacion.[31] These factors must have considerably slowed down the travel of Allan, thus negating the conclusion that the travel time from Sitio Ampay to the poblacion is two and a half hours. It should likewise be considered, as stated by the accused-appellants themselves in their Brief, that the time as stated by the witnesses was merely an approximation, "not as exact as [that seen] on a time piece,"[32] for most of them, if not all, have no time pieces. Moreover, if we were to believe the testimony of accused Abundo that at 4:00 p.m. he was approached by Bernarda Martinez, and ten minutes later by Allan Martinez at the CAFGU detachment, the travel time from Sitio Ampay to the poblacion would only be about one and a half (1 ½) hours. | |||||
|
2000-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We find, however, that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing. "To appreciate abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance, what should be considered is not that there were three, four or more assailants of one victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. It is therefore necessary to show that the attackers cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage of their superiority in strength."[29] In this case, appellants and their companions purposedly gathered together and armed themselves to take advantage of their combined strength to ensure that Reynaldo Danao would be able to kill the victim without any interference from other bystanders. However, not having been alleged in the Information, abuse of superior strength can only be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance.[30] | |||||
|
2000-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We find, however, that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing. "To appreciate abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance, what should be considered is not that there were three, four or more assailants of one victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. It is therefore necessary to show that the attackers cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage of their superiority in strength."[29] In this case, appellants and their companions purposedly gathered together and armed themselves to take advantage of their combined strength to ensure that Reynaldo Danao would be able to kill the victim without any interference from other bystanders. However, not having been alleged in the Information, abuse of superior strength can only be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance.[30] | |||||
|
2000-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| "PROSECUTOR DELOVINO Q: That night, where did you see Giliong (appellant)? A: On the road, Ma'am. COURT: Q: What happened? A: When I saw him we walked together. PROSECUTOR DELOVINO Q: What happened after that? A: He was carrying a long gun, Ma'am. Q: Could you describe what kind of gun was that? A: I did not really see the gun because it was wrapped in a jacket. Q: Where was that gun? A: It was placed under his right armpit, Ma'am. COURT: Q: What happened after that? A: He entered a house where there was a store, Your Honor. Q: Who entered? A: Guiliong (sic), Your Honor. Q: Then? A: When he entered I was about to go away and then something exploded, Your Honor. COURT: Proceed. PROSECUTOR DELOVINO: Q: What was it that exploded? A: It was a gun, Ma'am. Q: Where did the explosion come from? COURT: Q: Who fired that gun? A: It was fired by Guiliong, Your Honor. Q: You saw this? A: Yes, Sir. Q: To whom was the gun directed? A: It was pointed to one of our companions, Your Honor. Q: Who was that companion of yours? A: It was pointed towards, Berto (Roberto Balasanos, the victim), Your Honor. COURT: Proceed. PROSECUTOR DELOVINO: Q: What is the complete name of Berto? A: I don't know, Ma'am. Q: What happened to Berto after that? A: He died." As correctly observed by the trial court, Medina testified in clear, categorical manner as to the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. His testimony in court was at all fours with his previous sworn statement executed some four years prior. He was acquainted with appellant, known to him as "Giliong," for almost a year prior to the shooting incident. He was but a mere five (5) meters away from the victim when he was shot, and a mere ten (10) meters from the appellant. More importantly, his testimony as to the gunshot wounds sustained by the victim was corroborated by the Partial Autopsy Report, whose due execution and authenticity were duly admitted by the defense. Further, the defense could not attribute any motive for him to falsely testify against appellant. Absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for a prosecution witness to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and his testimony is thus worthy of full faith and credit.[20] Although Medina was the sole eyewitness to the crime, we have long held that the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction, so long as it is clear, straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court."[21] | |||||
|
2000-01-20 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Since treachery cannot be appreciated to qualify the crime into murder, the accused-appellants can only be convicted of the crime of homicide.[32] Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Since there is one aggravating circumstance in the present case, the penalty that should be imposed on the accused-appellants is reclusion temporal in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum imposable penalty is any period within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense which is prision mayor.[33] | |||||