This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-02-13 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The accused-appellant assails the factual findings of the trial court with respect to the identity of Juan Bacuta's assailants. He admits being present at the scene of the crime but points to Remwel Cornel and Daryl Cornel as the culprits. In upholding the factual findings of the trial court, we adhere to the well-entrenched rule that findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons because of the trial court's unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to observe their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under gruelling examination.[17] The prosecution witness Nestor Astorga clearly saw the accused-appellant stab Bacuta on the chest while he (Jocel Bejo) was on board the left back portion of Bacuta's owner-type jeep and Bacuta was on the driver's seat of the jeep. The other witnesses, Alolor and Bartolo, in unmistakable terms, also identified Jocel Bejo as the assailant who jumped off the left back portion of the jeep carrying a bloodstained knife. All three witnesses were innocent residents along Legaspi Street where the stabbing incident took place. They had no reason to falsely testify against the accused-appellant. Their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[18] We find no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court. In light of the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of the accused Jocel Bejo, the latter's denial of the charge against him and his attempt to point to Remwel Cornel and his brother Daryl Cornel as the assailants of Juan Bacuta must prove futile. The running case law is that positive identification of the accused will prevail over the defense of denial.[19] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| While the accused may have warned Tero ten days back or on November 2, 1995 that he would hack him if he (Tero) did not stop seeing Jessa Ramos, the accused was not hostile when he met Tero in the evening of November 12, 1995. The accused's scythe was hidden under his shirt, thus, Tero was not put on guard. The two just walked together towards Tero's house with the accused's arm around the latter's shoulder. There was no showing that the latter struggled to break free or that there was any hostility between the two as they trudged together. The accused just all of a sudden pulled out the sycthe he hid under his shirt and hacked Tero. This leads us to conclude that Tero's killing was treacherous. Treachery requires the concurrence of two conditions: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.[12] "The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim."[13] That the attack on Tero was so sudden he did not have an opportunity to defend himself and that the accused deliberately adopted the use of a scythe to hack Tero are clear from the testimony of Avenido. Even if Tero may have been forewarned of a possible danger to his person ten days before his death, the attack was nevertheless treacherous as we have ruled that despite the forewarning of danger to one's person, treachery may still be appreciated if the attack was executed in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[14] In the instant case, the suddennes of the hacking and the weapon used, a scythe, did not give the unarmed Tero a chance to defend himself and retaliate, thus he simply fell to the ground after the accused hacked him. | |||||