People vs. Bucayo G.R. No. 178770, June 13, 2008
Murder qualified by the use of superior strength
Facts:
Murder qualified by the use of superior strength
Facts:
Jonathan Perez and childhood friend Edison
Buencillo, Jr. were on their way to visit Jonathan’s common-law wife, Princess,
who lived in Tondo. As they were walking along A. Rivera St., they passed by
the group of Fernando and Hector Bucayo and Cesar and Jayson Ortiz, all of whom
Jonathan recognized. The group asked Jonathan and Edison to join them but the
two declined the invitation and proceeded to Princess’ house where they stayed
for 15 minutes. They took the same route home and on their way, the group,
joined by a certain Pamboy, Fortune, and some others, surrounded and blocked
them. As the group taunted and shouted invectives at Jonathan and Edison, a
rumble ensued. Jonathan attempted to flee but was dragged back to the melee by
Hector. Jonathan saw Hector and Jayson gang up on Edison, as Fernando struck
Jonathan repeatedly with a steel chair. As Jonathan was trying to escape, he
got hold of a barbecue stick and stabbed Hector with it. Jonathan said he
witnessed the assault on Edison and threw stones at the group to make them stop
but his attempts were futile. Neither was his call for help heard. He asked for
police assistance, and ran to Edison’s house to inform the latter’s mother of
the melee. Edison expired at the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Hospital.
After trial, on March 16, 2005, the RTC rendered its decision finding the accused Fernando and Hector guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by superior strength for the death of Edison. The case against Cesar and Jayson were archived to be revived upon their arrest.
On April 30, 2007, the CA affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC.
The lone issue presented before this Court is:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PATENT WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE.
Accused-appellants asserted that the testimony of Jonathan was not credible because he could not have witnessed everything that was happening because he was himself under attack.
Issue:
Is accused-appellants’ assertion meritorious?
Ruling:
No. Essentially, accused-appellants’ claim, that the testimony of Jonathan ought not to be believed simply because Jonathan could not have witnessed the mauling of Edison since he himself was under attack, has no basis. Both the trial and appellate courts found Jonathan’s testimony credible and their findings should be given full faith and credit. Time and again, we said that the findings by the RTC should be respected as the trial court judge was in the best position to determine the witness’ credibility. It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that the determination of credibility of witnesses is properly within the domain of the trial court as it is in the best position to observe their demeanor. This conclusion becomes all the more pressing when the appellate court affirms the findings of the trial court.
It also bears remembering that people react differently in different situations and there is no standard human response when one is confronted with a strange and frightful experience. Even if a witness is himself attacked, he is still in a position to later on describe what has transpired. In some situations, when under siege, one’s power of observation becomes even more acute and heightened. Recall that at that time Edison was being mauled to death with a steel chair, Jonathan was not himself under siege and even testified that at that time, he was even hurling stones at Edison’s maulers.
Lastly, the CA found that Jonathan had no reason to fabricate what he witnessed. As against Jonathan’s straightforward and convincing testimony, the alibi of Fernando that he was asleep in his house and the denial of Hector that they confronted and assaulted Jonathan and Edison miserably fail. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses and as against positive identification by prosecution witnesses, alibi is worthless. Just as alibi is an inherently weak defense, so is denial since these are self-serving negative evidence that cannot be accorded much evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal of accused-appellants Fernando and Hector Bucayo is DISMISSED. The April 30, 2007 Decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.
After trial, on March 16, 2005, the RTC rendered its decision finding the accused Fernando and Hector guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by superior strength for the death of Edison. The case against Cesar and Jayson were archived to be revived upon their arrest.
On April 30, 2007, the CA affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC.
The lone issue presented before this Court is:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PATENT WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE.
Accused-appellants asserted that the testimony of Jonathan was not credible because he could not have witnessed everything that was happening because he was himself under attack.
Issue:
Is accused-appellants’ assertion meritorious?
Ruling:
No. Essentially, accused-appellants’ claim, that the testimony of Jonathan ought not to be believed simply because Jonathan could not have witnessed the mauling of Edison since he himself was under attack, has no basis. Both the trial and appellate courts found Jonathan’s testimony credible and their findings should be given full faith and credit. Time and again, we said that the findings by the RTC should be respected as the trial court judge was in the best position to determine the witness’ credibility. It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that the determination of credibility of witnesses is properly within the domain of the trial court as it is in the best position to observe their demeanor. This conclusion becomes all the more pressing when the appellate court affirms the findings of the trial court.
It also bears remembering that people react differently in different situations and there is no standard human response when one is confronted with a strange and frightful experience. Even if a witness is himself attacked, he is still in a position to later on describe what has transpired. In some situations, when under siege, one’s power of observation becomes even more acute and heightened. Recall that at that time Edison was being mauled to death with a steel chair, Jonathan was not himself under siege and even testified that at that time, he was even hurling stones at Edison’s maulers.
Lastly, the CA found that Jonathan had no reason to fabricate what he witnessed. As against Jonathan’s straightforward and convincing testimony, the alibi of Fernando that he was asleep in his house and the denial of Hector that they confronted and assaulted Jonathan and Edison miserably fail. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses and as against positive identification by prosecution witnesses, alibi is worthless. Just as alibi is an inherently weak defense, so is denial since these are self-serving negative evidence that cannot be accorded much evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal of accused-appellants Fernando and Hector Bucayo is DISMISSED. The April 30, 2007 Decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.